ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, March 05, 2019

The Fiscal Justice Initiative

A whole range of new plot lines suddenly occurs to me:
France intends to tax the revenue of about 30 Internet giants such as Amazon.com Inc. to help ensure “fiscal justice,” according to Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire. The levy of as much as 5 percent of French sales will start Jan. 1 and potentially raise about 500 million euros ($570 million) for the state, Le Maire told Le Parisien newspaper. Under the plan, which the cabinet will discuss on WednWednesday, the tax will apply to any company with global revenue of more than 750 million euros and French sales above 25 million euros, Le Maire said.

U.S., Chinese and European companies may meet the levy criteria, including a few French businesses, the report said, as governments grapple with how to tax global Internet giants that can generate huge domestic revenues from limited physical assets. Spain and the U.K. are also working on digital sales taxes, while Europe has so far balked at a continent-wide levy. France intends to tax revenues from local targeted ads, marketplaces and the re-selling of personal data.
The free ride for Big Internet appears to finally be over.

Labels: ,

64 Comments:

Blogger Miguel March 05, 2019 10:31 AM  

Government is always trying to get money from somewhere. I am sure that extra cash will be used for the benefit of French Natives.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2019 10:35 AM  

Privileges are entangled with responsibilities....

Blogger Johnny March 05, 2019 10:39 AM  

Something that always makes me a little crazy is the failure to get that a 'rich' company is not a rich person. Riddle me this, is the average stockholder in one of the 30 internet giants more or less wealthy than a stockholder in the smaller than internet giant companies? The sweeping answer is that there is no reason to think so. So... what is the "fiscal justice" in this measure? Income distribution between impersonal entities?

Anonymous Anonymous March 05, 2019 10:44 AM  

Johnny wrote:Something that always makes me a little crazy is the failure to get that a 'rich' company is not a rich person

All that matters is the neo-con shabbos-goy governments are establishing precedent for punitive government intervention against commercial entities that act against the interests of the nation.

The fact both the corporations and the government in this scenario are enemies of the French people means it doesn't matter what they do - all that matters is how we turn it to our advantage.

Blogger tc March 05, 2019 10:45 AM  

It is a war of the few who understand tech and those, who do not - understand anything.

I have been waiting for this for so long...

Blogger Salt March 05, 2019 10:53 AM  

New taxes to support the new population. But of course.

Blogger VD March 05, 2019 10:54 AM  

Something that always makes me a little crazy is the failure to get that a 'rich' company is not a rich person.

That's not a failure and you clearly don't understand the situation. A corporation is a legal person, with all of the rights of a natural person. Why do you think it should be excused the responsibilities of a natural person?

Blogger Chad Thundercockovich March 05, 2019 11:04 AM  

Put that corporation in prison for stealing my data! And put a hold on it's ability to generate an income!

Blogger maniacprovost March 05, 2019 11:10 AM  

Corporate taxes encourage larger, more integrated corporations by increasing the friction of B2B transactions.

Eliminate corporate taxes and suddenly you will have more, smaller corporations.

It's just like corporate regulations- they are pushed by giant companies to strangle smaller competitors.

The absurd privileges of corporate personhood are a related issue but ceteris parebus.

Blogger Johnny March 05, 2019 11:13 AM  

@7 Natural persons have their income taxed on a scale where at least in theory the higher income people pay more percentage wise than lower income people. Progressive taxation. The usual selling of this concept is social equity. It is only fair that higher income people pay more.

In this instance it may well be that the government has covert motives in the background. And if so, so be it. But social equity based on the concept of progressive taxation should not be an issue here. I haven't looked at tax rates recently, but our government tends to treat corporate income like it is personal. While I don't favor it, a flat tax rate on corporate earnings would be entirely workable. Earn a dollar or a gazillion and pay the same percentage. It is the recipients of the dividends or the capital gains that should pick up progressive taxation in the name of equity, if that policy is in place.

Perhaps big institutions should be treated different than smaller ones, but not in the belief that a progressive tax is being implemented in the name of fairness.

Blogger Jack Ward March 05, 2019 11:29 AM  

I have no love for the likes of FB, Twitter, Amazon, etc.
However, from a tactical standpoint, did I own one or more of these concerns, I would get together with the others and totally pull out of Europe and other places that are obviously trying to get more vig from my company. If nothing else it would be interesting to see if there would be any user backlash in EU and how the politicos would respond. Use teargas on FB.
Of course, watching FB get gassed would provide considerable entertainment.

Blogger Johnny March 05, 2019 11:32 AM  

As a lot of people are bugged by the legal person thing, I am going to explain the reason by way of example.

I buy LP gas from a local cooperative. They have maybe 20 employees and one of them drives out with the truck and fills the tank. If the cooperative were not a legal person this couldn't be done, because if I don't pay up the company needs access to the courts. As only humans have access to the courts (the dog can't sue you), the cooperative has to be treated as a person to collect. Hence it becomes a legal person.

Eliminating the legal person thing would require either a separate legal code for non human entities, or the complete elimination of all business enterprise except owner-operator. The simple solution is to make them legal persons.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len March 05, 2019 11:36 AM  

Why should we expect this move to be any more successful in extracting any money from entities which employ entire firms of lawyers and accountants to evade their existing tax liabilities (that is, when their .gov stooges haven't already removed most of the burden from them)?

Blogger VD March 05, 2019 11:38 AM  

However, from a tactical standpoint, did I own one or more of these concerns, I would get together with the others and totally pull out of Europe and other places that are obviously trying to get more vig from my company.

Never going to happen. They might make some noise about that, but look how desperate they are to get into China. European tech companies wish their countries protected their national markets in the same way.

Blogger VD March 05, 2019 11:40 AM  

As a lot of people are bugged by the legal person thing, I am going to explain the reason by way of example.

We're way ahead of you, Johnny.

The problem isn't that they are a legal person, it's that they are a legal person who does not face the consequences of a natural person. If a natural person steals from you, he goes to prison and can't earn any money. If an artificial person steals from you, it doesn't.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 05, 2019 11:55 AM  

Even worse. If a fictional person steals $250,00,000 from the markets, not only will no one go to prison, the artificial person will be fined $10,000,000.

You do the math. Your (((masters))) have.

Blogger Talios Hammerfist March 05, 2019 11:59 AM  

We all knew this day was coming.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len March 05, 2019 12:00 PM  

it's that they are a legal person who does not face the consequences of a natural person

Like being required to have a single legal identity, or death, from natural causes or otherwise.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2019 12:01 PM  

Jesus Vox... you're smarter than this.

Taxing amazon 5% per sale doesn't tax amazon. It taxes the French people. Amazon couldn't care less about something like that.

"hey Jeff... france says we have to tack on 5% sales tax"

"huh? what? oh... okay... whatever..."

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2019 12:05 PM  

"A corporation is a legal person, with all of the rights of a natural person. Why do you think it should be excused the responsibilities of a natural person?"

This is simply untrue, as can be shown by something as simple as the fact that corporations cannot vote.

And that's not nitpicking - there are hundreds of ways in which laws and rights for corporations vary from laws and rights for citizens.

The criticism of the concept of corporate personhood may or may not be valid from legal and practical perspectives, but it at least needs to be based on reality.

Blogger MightyKevster March 05, 2019 12:07 PM  

If governments start taxing internet businesses heavily, won't those costs mostly roll down to consumers? I can't help but think in doing this, governments would be accelerating consumer rejection of internet purchasing. I'm not sure what practical impact would look like, but the tightening of the government noose around the necks of populations via increased taxation seems...ill advised.

Also, I wonder what effect, if any, behavior like this would have on how 'internet giants' respond to the censorship issue. Will they double-down with government partnerships in an effort to mitigate impact, or will they see the attempted government takeover as a betrayal?

My children are reading In Freedom's Cause (http://infreedomscause.com/) and the whole situation seems awful similar to how the English (big govt) used the Scottish Lords (internet business) to turn the screws against the Scots (non-elite populace), getting progressively worse until rebellion. Forgive my ignorance or misapplication of history, just the first example I thought of.

Blogger BassmanCO March 05, 2019 12:10 PM  

MightyKevster wrote:If governments start taxing internet businesses heavily, won't those costs mostly roll down to consumers? I can't help but think in doing this, governments would be accelerating consumer rejection of internet purchasing. I'm not sure what practical impact would look like, but the tightening of the government noose around the necks of populations via increased taxation seems...ill advised.

Also, I wonder what effect, if any, behavior like this would have on how 'internet giants' respond to the censorship issue. Will they double-down with government partnerships in an effort to mitigate impact, or will they see the attempted government takeover as a betrayal?

My children are reading In Freedom's Cause (http://infreedomscause.com/) and the whole situation seems awful similar to how the English (big govt) used the Scottish Lords (internet business) to turn the screws against the Scots (non-elite populace), getting progressively worse until rebellion. Forgive my ignorance or misapplication of history, just the first example I thought of.


One of the natural consequences is that it helps level the playing field for mom and pop shops that already have to pay sales taxes. Not saying they won't still get screwed by the government, but right now lots of businesses can't compete with Amazon because of the tax issue.

Blogger OGRE March 05, 2019 12:15 PM  

@12 Johnny

As a lot of people are bugged by the legal person thing...

As VD points out its not the fact of the fictitious legal person--an entity that can stand in place of a group of other entities--that is the problem. But some of the actual issues we can identify are:

1) special government privileges, such as limited liability
2) ease of creation, without limitation as to duration and purpose
3) the disconnection between ownership and control, as well as ownership and responsibility
4) the wide barrier between the owners of capital (stockholders) and labor, in the form of not just the management but also the board.
5) corporations used as a tool for creating massive concentrations of wealth, particularly with regard to the means of production
6) as a corollary to 5, corporations used as a tool for skimming wealth from both the owners of capital and labor
7) the modern large corporation used as a tool for urbanizing and globalizing the population, by removing wealth from the countryside and concentrating it in the major urban centers

Most of those issues can be summed up with Taleb's platitude of not having 'skin in the game,' and I'd hope the issues with a society built around few people having skin in the game is readily apparent.

Further, if we were to chart over time the expansion of corporate entities and their powers with individual ownership of wealth producing assets, we'd see a striking negative correlation from say 1850 to today. Essentially, the rise of the corporation has removed the vast majority of people from having any skin in the game and being simply a wage earner as opposed to a property owner (at least with regard to any property that creates wealth, or is just a nominal claim of ownership such as investments in stocks and mutual funds). We could also easily chart right alongside that the rise in such destructive problems such as the breakdown of families and the resulting rise of societal evils such as atheism/materialism/progressivism and the corresponding degeneracy of all kinds (abortion, homosexuality, hypersexualization, etc.) Point being, these developments are all related.

Blogger Azimus March 05, 2019 12:17 PM  

I'm generally not in favor of taxation or government intervention of any kind, but Amazon is a leach that is using their channel distribution control to transform the retail economy into a "buy and wait" surveilled cashless economy monstrosity whose endgame may just be not allowing anyone to buy or sell without the mark of the beast.

Blogger justaguy March 05, 2019 12:26 PM  



the legal person idea: The idea of the corporation was one of the main reasons the West grew rich. The ability to risk capital and not much else allowed risks that would not be taken otherwise.

Now we can argue that the government, from where all the powers of the corporation, has given too much power to the corporation. Corporations used to be much more constrained by government than they are now. Especially in the financial world.

For example, investment banks used to have to be partnerships where the senior partners were on the hook for the actions. This was changed through regulation. There will always be people who will take advantage of what the government allows. Would 2008 have happened if the big investment banks senior partners were on the hook for the losses? Likely not.

Do we need to cut back on the powers of the corporation-- I think yes, but how to do it is the real question. Lots of law review articles on exactly that topic.

Blogger Johnny March 05, 2019 12:30 PM  


I favor giving very small business a tax break on the assumption they are socially desirable. Otherwise my tax scheme is that businesses should be taxed at high rate on their income, but allowed to deduct dividends as an expense. The dividends should then be taxed as personal income by the recipients. If there is to be progressive taxation, that would put it where it belongs, on the individual. Also, as dividends are currently double taxed, more than is currently the case, it would tend to favor dividend payments instead of capital gains.

Not so long ago, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet avoided paying tax on a hundred billion dollars (billions, not millions) through the combination of capital gains (you pay only when you sell the stock) and starting a charity. I think some of that 'charity' should have gone to the treasury.

Blogger justaguy March 05, 2019 12:32 PM  

Taxing sales instead of the profits of a multi-national corporation is the only way to combat the ability of a company like Amazon to move the profits to whatever tax haven offers the best tax rates. Whether or not the transfer of profit out of a high tax state is done by patent royalties going to the business in the tax haven state eating all the profits from the sales (Apple's choice) or other ways , the big companies will alway be thinking up inventive ways to transfer profits to tax haven states.

What counties have found is that the companies can shift their business practices faster than the countries can discover how the big company is shifting profit and tax it. Of course there is always the problem that France will try to tax the profits made in other countries also, since shifting profits makes it hard to tell what came from where, except for sales. Sales have a pretty definite country of origin.

Blogger Primus Pilus March 05, 2019 12:33 PM  

"Taxing amazon 5% per sale doesn't tax amazon. It taxes the French people. Amazon couldn't care less about something like that. "

And since consumerism is the West's highest virtue, we can't possibly do anything that might make a consumer slightly less comfortable, lest the frog not appreciate the slow simmer.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella March 05, 2019 12:38 PM  

Our state taxes purchases from Amazon. There are warehouses for Amazon, therefore, the state taxes Amazon purchases. Amazon still does the two day shipping thing, so the tax issue is not a deal killer.

Our state does not tax things bought from companies that have no physical assets in the state. Flower Cosmetics, Drew Barrymore's brand, is sold at Ulta and Walmart. These stores have physical presence in the state: one pays taxes. Flower Cosmetics also has an online store, but no physical presence- no warehouses- in the state. There is no sales tax.



European states have incredibly high rates of taxation. They also have licensing and who knows what else regs. I don't know how this plays out. Small sewing pattern companies sell digital downloads of patterns. For some people in some European nations, this is the only way to buy American-style sewing patterns. French patterns run $30-$40 for a single skirt. An American independent pattern costs either free or up to $30, tops. Most range $15 to $25. It is very odd seeing patterns that sell for $1 on sale in America being treated as premium, exotic sewing patterns in the rest of the world.


American makeup is not necessarily imported to Europe or even Canada. It's a big, legal project. So something that is inexpensive drugstore makeup in America is treated as ultra-premium, exotic makeup around the rest of the world. It's very odd seeing eyeshadow sold for $8 at a low-budget store being wear-tested against the most premium brands in the world- Chanel, Yves St Laroche- and, nicely enough, holding its own.

Blogger OGRE March 05, 2019 12:39 PM  

@25 justaguy

The idea of the corporation was one of the main reasons the West grew rich. The ability to risk capital and not much else allowed risks that would not be taken otherwise.

So externalizing risk onto third parties involuntary is a good and moral thing? because some people got rich?

I'd also take issue with the claim that the West 'got rich' because of corporations. That proposition is so readily taken for granted, so deeply ingrained in our American consciousness, and remains so unquestioned, that I'd think we'd be more suspect of it being propaganda. I could just as easily say that the West got rich in spite of corporations, especially with regard to the post War period when the rest of the industrialized world had been bombed into oblivion.

Blogger Johnny March 05, 2019 12:41 PM  

Early in the twenty century we invaded Central American countries repeatedly, mainly to protect the interests of American companies that had invested in the region. They came to really hate us for it. Anyway, that seems to be the way we are now with these multinational companies. They play governments against each other to their benefit.

Blogger Lovekraft March 05, 2019 12:46 PM  

I imagine massive panic and action is being taken by the Sorosian dark money to keep the veil in place. They prefer to operate in secret, their legions of lawyers and activists at the ready.

We want big corp to be pushed to the limit and begin revealing who are among their ranks that have SJW agendas.

Blogger Jack Amok March 05, 2019 12:56 PM  

The ability to risk capital and not much else allowed risks that would not be taken otherwise

You don't need corporations to do that, it can be done with loans. If I loan a partnership $50k and they go bankrupt because they got sued out of existence for dangerous products, I don't lose any more than the loan amount.

What you can't do without corporations is allow an ownership stake without liability, but I'm no longer inclined to see passive ownership as a good thing. We do need some kind of protection for active owners from our overly-rapacious legal system, but we need that regardless.

Blogger justaguy March 05, 2019 1:07 PM  

#30 and #33:

Yes. The ability to limit risks is why corporations are good. PLEASE READ the rest! The government gives too much power to them. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Until very recently, all big financial had to be partnerships-- they had to be because governments could not trust the corporations to handle the risks. It worked. There were still corporations like GE building big machines-- the risk was contained. Somehow the governments got the idea that the market could restrain risk and gave up on the regulation of what corporations could do.

So yes, limit corporations, make the banks be partnership, etc. It used to work and could again-- don't give up on the idea itself. There are many cases where everyone wants to limit risk and everyone understands the risks-- like in shipping.

Blogger VFM Bear March 05, 2019 1:14 PM  

Uganda, of all places, put a social media tax on users. In order to "curb gossip".

I guess they don't want to be Ugandan Springed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-04/how-would-people-react-social-media-tax-look-uganda

Blogger Johnny March 05, 2019 1:18 PM  

Along with the other stuff brought up here, there is significant abuse of stockholders by management in a lot of companies. The board of directors is supposed to ride herd on the corporate officers, and in general they don't. Lots of in house stuff going on also. The same people will be on the board of directors of several different companies that are alleged to be in competition with each other.

Blogger Johnny March 05, 2019 1:26 PM  

With regard to legal persons and human rights, there was a move in Spain some time ago to give human rights to primates. The chimp could sue you, or the zoo I suppose. Of course he would need a guardian to get it done, and we might suppose the guardian would be the activist pushing the concept.

Blogger Ransom Smith March 05, 2019 1:28 PM  

Uganda, of all places, put a social media tax on users. In order to "curb gossip".
Homosexuality is also illegal in Uganda and I believe a death penalty office as well.

Blogger Servant March 05, 2019 1:29 PM  

The problem is i can find exactly the thing i need with no looking and have it within two days. If they actually gave a shit they'd tax fast shipping. See if people can wait for that thing they ordered.

Internet sales definitely don't have aone to one relationship with physical sales. There was a study on those tiny house people and they found they buy as much if not more shit. The prime Avenue was amazon. I just don't see people buying as much as they do on amazon

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella March 05, 2019 1:49 PM  

This is OT, but someone asked, last week. The first indy romance author to really make money in ebooks is Liliana Hart. She has interviews online. She would go to writers' conferences. The lead panel would say that ebooks were not a good thing. She would say that she made money. The people who approached her afterwards, she would explain how she did it. Only one writer followed up, and that writer started making money. Liliana Hart has moved from romance to more conventional police procedurals. She also has a website for other authors, or something. I'm pretty vague about it.

Jasinda Wilder also has interviews. She was doing her own thing, when the Indie Voice writers invited her to join up with them. She has romance novel series and a workout/fasting/ weight loss book series.

Jana Deleon is co-writer on a book about how-to succeed as an ebook romance writer. She's part of "The Indie Voice" which is a marketing/brainstorming group for a set of e-book romance writers.

They all do what Vox Day does: cross-promote, work tirelessly, work professionally, and so on. They were second tier romance writers who could not get deals from regular publishing houses, or the deals and execution were horrifying, or the numbers just did not work.

I only knew about Mr Day's problems with Amazon from this blog. The usual suggestion when I log into Amazon is one of the Castalia House or Arkhaven Comics offerings. They can do more than that, apparently, if they really like you. I would think asking Amazon to level up by doing a targeted email offer, or putting Castalia House on a promo banner, or whatever else promos they do, would be an excellent goodwill gesture on the part of the marketing team, to keep up the goodwill after the scummy little admins deleted his work. They do this for some indy romance authors- it's how I found out about them in the first place.


Emily McKay is a conventionally published author whose publisher sells ebooks. She's a good comparison, in that she's a really good writer, but her promo work is done by the publisher. She's basically unknown, despite awards, fantastic reviews and a range of work. 31 novels, so far.

Blogger OGRE March 05, 2019 2:17 PM  

@34 justaguy

I know the terminology is 'limiting' risk, but thats not exactly whats going on. Risk isn't being removed, its being transferred...generally onto unwitting third parties, involuntarily, or onto the government. But also onto the employees, the customers, and the suppliers of the corporation. Its socializing risk for the private benefit of the investors. The risks don't go away, any harms that occur are still suffered; its just a question of who has to bear the burden of such harms.

Its not even necessary for capital accumulation, it just provides for a potentially greater return to an investor than a loan of the same amount. If I make a loan to a corporation in the amount of $X with an interest rate of Y%, then I'm capped at the return on my investment. But with stock if the business takes off I can reap much greater returns than my investment of $X. The business has the same capital from me of $X, in both cases I've limited my liability to $X, but I've transferred any additional risks onto third parties without reducing the potential of my return. How in the world is that a just and moral thing?

Blogger maniacprovost March 05, 2019 2:30 PM  

The ability to limit risks is why corporations are good. PLEASE READ the rest! The government gives too much power to them. It is not an all or nothing proposition. Until very recently, all big financial had to be partnerships-- they had to be because governments could not trust the corporations to handle the risks. It worked. There were still corporations like GE building big machines-- the risk was contained. Somehow the governments got the idea that the market could restrain risk and gave up on the regulation of what corporations could do.

The market will restrain risk... if the market faces the consequences of those risks. Currently, it does not. The taxpayer takes the risk on behalf of the banks, steel mills, aerospace companies, etc.

If a person steals a $4,000 car, they lose months/years and go on probation. The punishment far exceeds the value of what they stole. Why? Deterrence. It's not the first time they stole a car. It's the first time they got caught.

The only corporation that was fined anything close to a deterrent amount that I know of was BP after the Deepwater Horizon / Macando blowout.

Now... in many cases, it even appears that a corporation is being punished, but in fact the shareholders are being punished. The corporate structure itself, and the people who got away with knowingly breaking the law, are untouched. They just move on to a new set of suckers I mean shareholders.

Blogger eclecticme March 05, 2019 2:33 PM  

@25. justaguy March 05, 2019 12:26 PM

For example, investment banks used to have to be partnerships where the senior partners were on the hook for the actions. This was changed through regulation. There will always be people who will take advantage of what the government allows. Would 2008 have happened if the big investment banks senior partners were on the hook for the losses? Likely not.

I recall Liars Poker describing some Wall St. firm going public. The partners used to bear the risk as owners. Then the shareholders bore the risk and the former partners were now managers and the agency problem arose. It was in the managers interest to screw the shareholders and line their own pockets. See also The Big Short.

Rogue Trader is a good book and movie about how Nick Leeson wiped out Barings Bank partners, not shareholders.

Blogger eclecticme March 05, 2019 2:53 PM  

I don't see how this tax would be passed onto consumers as Google et al. are 'free.' I imagine previous advertising revenue was taxed somehow and now will be again.

Decades ago I would be siding with the corporations. Now I am happy to see the national speed bumps cause some damage to the mega corporations.

Officers of corporations can be held criminally liable. Maybe the fact that they are not is political not legal. After the US savings and loan debacle lots of people went to jail. After the 2008 melt down almost no one.

Read up on the HSBC crimes of money laundering. They broke up monies from drug lords and arms dealers into maybe $5K pieces, wired them across borders to avoid detection, then recombined them. There was even an inside whistle blower with lots of documents. Zero individual criminal convictions but the 'corporation' was convicted and paid a fine. It did not hurt that James Comey was on the board.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2019 3:12 PM  

"Something that always makes me a little crazy is the failure to get that a 'rich' company is not a rich person."

Notice that the words corporation, embodiment, and incarnation are synonymous.

"Taxing amazon 5% per sale doesn't tax amazon."

Read closer. It's a revenue tax, not a sales tax.

"This is simply untrue, as can be shown by something as simple as the fact that corporations cannot vote."

First of all, not necessarily relevant. Obviously there are different causal dynamics involved. However, if in any one of those dynamics the corporation has the legal rights of a person, it should also have the legal liabilities along that axis. In that particular, for example FB receiving benefits from a government and paying taxes, FB is entirely the same as a person in legal rights.

And let's be real. Virtually every single one of the largest corporations has their hands so deep in government grant wallets, and is so embedded in the depths of various loopholes that they should by all right be put though the wringer... repeatedly.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 05, 2019 3:18 PM  

"If governments start taxing internet businesses heavily, won't those costs mostly roll down to consumers?"

Only the ones who don't become more discerning as the costs increase and naively continue to accept the cost of being spied on and propagandized using their own resources. Really, those corps are already slurping taxes through the gov't teat. This is just partially whipping the table out from over those circlejerk deals already going on underneath.

Blogger FP March 05, 2019 3:19 PM  

S1AL wrote:"A corporation is a legal person, with all of the rights of a natural person. Why do you think it should be excused the responsibilities of a natural person?"

This is simply untrue, as can be shown by something as simple as the fact that corporations cannot vote.

And that's not nitpicking - there are hundreds of ways in which laws and rights for corporations vary from laws and rights for citizens.

The criticism of the concept of corporate personhood may or may not be valid from legal and practical perspectives, but it at least needs to be based on reality.


Oh come on, of course corporations can vote. They do it with money and influence in hundreds of ways. The democrat party in my state a few years ago put out radio ads during tax season reminding people you can donate to your favorite political party or charity, $50 per person and get that $50 taken off your state income taxes.

Nevermind that same political party was also complaining about being short on revenue in the state budget and wanted to raise taxes across the board. But hey, donate fifty bucks to your local zoo er political party and get it taken off your income taxes. Then watch as they tax soda pop 200% or argue that repealing the $10 background check fee on guns would harm the state economy greatly.

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2019 3:30 PM  

"In that particular, for example FB receiving benefits from a government and paying taxes, FB is entirely the same as a person in legal rights."

Does FB receive the same benefits and pay the same taxes? Of course not.

Look, I get that "hate on the megacorps" is popular right now, but so far I haven't seen any indication that the Peele doing so have any idea about the history of corporations, whether specifically Roman/Western or generally around the planet.

Hint: the oldest extant and continuous corporation on the planet is the Roman Catholic Church.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 05, 2019 3:30 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"Taxing amazon 5% per sale doesn't tax amazon."

Read closer. It's a revenue tax, not a sales tax.

You sound as if you believe there's mroe than a nominal difference.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2019 3:48 PM  

"Read closer. It's a revenue tax, not a sales tax."

it is a special kind of ignorance that leads one to believe corporations pay taxes.

The people who buy the goods and services corporations produce and market pay taxes. The workers who work for corporations pay taxes.

Taxes affect the people... and only the people. There is no one else they can effect.

Blogger FP March 05, 2019 4:04 PM  

"Hint: the oldest extant and continuous corporation on the planet is the Roman Catholic Church."

That doesn't really help your argument. But hey, the watermelons sure are all about them carbon indulgence taxes!

Blogger bobby March 05, 2019 4:39 PM  

"So... what is the "fiscal justice" in this measure?"

None. It's simply more efficient and productive to shovel money out of one huge bucket than it is to chase around thousands of small buckets.

Blogger Mandos March 05, 2019 4:47 PM  

Leave it to us to innovate when it comes to taxes. I knew it would come in handy someday.

Blogger Mark Stoval March 05, 2019 5:12 PM  

Nate wrote:"Read closer. It's a revenue tax, not a sales tax."

it is a special kind of ignorance that leads one to believe corporations pay taxes.

The people who buy the goods and services corporations produce and market pay taxes. The workers who work for corporations pay taxes.

Taxes affect the people... and only the people. There is no one else they can effect.



Nate, we need to make kids in middle school write that 100 times each day until they can never forget it.

By the way, you sound like you must be from the rural south.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf March 05, 2019 5:46 PM  

Think of all the Welfare ghettos that could be built....

As an aside, it seems like these companies would be paying taxes just like any other Advertising Agency? I don't like the 'free-ride' aspect (when the US GOV/CIA buy server farms from Amazon, or schools buy Apple exclusive 'teaching' elements), but I also don't want the governments imposing more of a tax burden than there already is. Which will just be squandered (or offset by one scam or another). Amazon paid how much tax?

Anyway, I only see this eventually hurting small competitors trying to make their way onto the internet.

Damn

Blogger S1AL March 05, 2019 6:10 PM  

"That doesn't really help your argument. But hey, the watermelons sure are all about them carbon indulgence taxes!"

I didn't make an argument, so it couldn't possibly help...

Blogger Nate March 05, 2019 7:26 PM  

"
Nate, we need to make kids in middle school write that 100 times each day until they can never forget it.

By the way, you sound like you must be from the rural south. "

Roll Damn Tide.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2019 8:07 PM  

Roll Damn Tide.

Tidewater South, then?

Blogger Nate March 05, 2019 8:26 PM  

"Tidewater South, then"

Bama... near the gulf... There are parts of florida that I have to drive north to get to. Other side of the bay from Mobile.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2019 9:21 PM  

Roll Damn Tide.

Tidewater South, then?

Blogger Unknown March 05, 2019 11:27 PM  

France is a very interesting country to be following right now. If you guys are interested you should follow fdesouche.com for news about what's going on (use translate obviously if you can't speak french). I've never been to France but the political discourse that i'm seeing in the media and online is insanely more tense and polarized than what is happening in the US at the moment. Add to the fact that the far right is actually the most popular among Millenials and Gen Z and you get a powder keg that's going to blow up soon. France is probably the first western country where you will see ethnic cleansing and violence. Likely even before the Empire of Nothing starts to break down.

Blogger Boomer55 March 06, 2019 12:45 AM  

Fuck those Champagne socialists, always whining about, "howcome we can't be like France and Sweden, they're so progressive!"

Blogger Boomer55 March 06, 2019 12:51 AM  

@61
I remember reading political science professors talking about the "socialist" systems in places like France and Sweden, and why they are workd so well, EXCEPT they work because the culture is largely the same with high trust.
You can have capitalism with a huge welfare state eating 55% of your GDP when you don't have foriegn moochers gaming the system and destroying the trust. The faster destruction of the larger social programs have probably accelerated the nationalism, compared to the US.

Blogger Balam March 06, 2019 6:23 PM  

S1AL wrote:Does FB receive the same benefits and pay the same taxes? Of course not.

Benefits and taxes (rights too) vary between single mothers, felon citizens, married fathers, poor men and rich men. There are tiers and exceptions everywhere, almost nothing uniform. All of these categories, including corporate personhood, are conveniences for the state in terms of taxes and doled out benefits. If the state decides that corporations are gonna pay up who are they to say otherwise? I do not understand your argument - is it that certain state demands are predicated against being against actual people so the same moral ground does not hold against corporations?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts