Looks like the French Government has decided the internet is a vast new source of tax just waiting to be plundered. It's not the traditional company profits that the French want, it's a slice of Google's advertising revenue. Per click? Per French IP address? Per franc charged? It's early days yet, but I guess they need to get in quick before all countries take a slice. Up until now, 100% of revenue can only be taxed 100%, but maybe with technology, governments can finally break that barrier?
A report, commissioned by the [French] government, suggests firms such as Google, Yahoo and Facebook should pay a new tax on their online ad revenues.
The money could be used to fund legal alternatives for buying books, films and music on the internet.
Oh, well, if it's going to a good cause...
But critics say the tax would be difficult to implement and Google says it could slow down innovation.
Critics would say that, wouldn't they? Difficult just means it will cost companies even more money to account for the tax, and they get buckets of the stuff, so no worries.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a tough line on the increasing dominance of digital content.
Because information is a threat to National Security?
France has just introduced tough new legislation aimed at removing those who persistently download illegal content from the net.
Yes, good to bring this up in a discussion about tax. Tax must be due because it's illegal to break laws you know.
It has also gone head-to-head with Google over its plans to digitise the world's books, with a project to set up its own digital library financed by the government to the tune of £700m.
Ah, so in order to fund government expenditure of over a billion NZ dollars so they can compete against Google, it's necessary to tax Google that money. Because the government wouldn't know how to actually run a business to then invest in sharing information.
Idiots! (That's French for idiots)
Imbeciles! (That's French for imbeciles)
The proposals for a tax on content is still very much in the early stages and there are few details of how it would exactly work.
No, they'll go to tender and ask the market how to figure it out. Then tax them for the idea.
Patrick Zelnik, who contributed to the report and is also the founder of the French president's wife's record label, hopes the idea will be taken on board across the EU.
Well, that would qualify him to think up new and novel ways to extract money from citizens. But why hope that the entire EU tax Google? To remove competition no doubt. Then the only thing you'll see on the internet are the French President's wife's record label advertising, and Google complaining about the tax bill on that.
But Google is among those to have voiced opposition to the plan; the better way to support content creation is to find new business models that help consumers find great content and rewards artists and publishers for their work."
But the government is an artist when it comes to creative taxation. A con artist.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
A report, commissioned by the [French] government, suggests firms such as Google, Yahoo and Facebook should pay a new tax on their online ad revenues.
The money could be used to fund legal alternatives for buying books, films and music on the internet.
Oh, well, if it's going to a good cause...
But critics say the tax would be difficult to implement and Google says it could slow down innovation.
Critics would say that, wouldn't they? Difficult just means it will cost companies even more money to account for the tax, and they get buckets of the stuff, so no worries.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has taken a tough line on the increasing dominance of digital content.
Because information is a threat to National Security?
France has just introduced tough new legislation aimed at removing those who persistently download illegal content from the net.
Yes, good to bring this up in a discussion about tax. Tax must be due because it's illegal to break laws you know.
It has also gone head-to-head with Google over its plans to digitise the world's books, with a project to set up its own digital library financed by the government to the tune of £700m.
Ah, so in order to fund government expenditure of over a billion NZ dollars so they can compete against Google, it's necessary to tax Google that money. Because the government wouldn't know how to actually run a business to then invest in sharing information.
Idiots! (That's French for idiots)
Imbeciles! (That's French for imbeciles)
The proposals for a tax on content is still very much in the early stages and there are few details of how it would exactly work.
No, they'll go to tender and ask the market how to figure it out. Then tax them for the idea.
Patrick Zelnik, who contributed to the report and is also the founder of the French president's wife's record label, hopes the idea will be taken on board across the EU.
Well, that would qualify him to think up new and novel ways to extract money from citizens. But why hope that the entire EU tax Google? To remove competition no doubt. Then the only thing you'll see on the internet are the French President's wife's record label advertising, and Google complaining about the tax bill on that.
But Google is among those to have voiced opposition to the plan; the better way to support content creation is to find new business models that help consumers find great content and rewards artists and publishers for their work."
But the government is an artist when it comes to creative taxation. A con artist.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
I can't remember a time when i clicked on anything French. Do they have anything that we need.
ReplyDeleteInteresting,...
ReplyDeleteSeveral weeks ago I had dabbled with the idea of creating a world wide tax collection system paid from world wide email usage through telecommunication companies to a world fund.
The world wide fund, possibly run by the United Nations would distribute the wealth created to bring all people in the world up to a level playing feild and create things that would benefit the planet as a whole.
It was seen as a more simplistic alternative to the carbon credits approach to gain collection of funds on a global scale.
Food for thought.
I would be interested in your comments.
Regards
Christopher O'Connor
Concept posted on the link below
http://tiny.cc/GBL3I
Long form: http://autismnz.help-out.net/main-forum-f1/concept-to-create-tax-s-to-improve-the-enviroment-and-the-worlds-welfare-by-christopher-o-connor-t163.htm#334
Hi Chris. A few things spring to mind, and my criticism is only relfective of my natural predisposition to be suspcious of any new tax
ReplyDelete1. "No taxation without representation"
2. We already have a tax system, implemented country by country. What's the difference between this approach and simply asking the governments of the world to collect more tax and donate it?
3. Large organisations, such as the UN tend to be corrupt when it comes to turning over large sums of money. There are many examples.
4. How much money? Tax will modify behaviour. Email as a form of communication may be replaced, or expect to see some countries hosting encrypted communications hiding email packets, and people tunring to those offerings.
5. How do low income earners sending an email for a job pay less than the rich person/company?
I'll pop over and read your full proposal when I get a chance
Hi Zen Tiger
ReplyDeleteNaturally there would be suspicion surrounding new tax methods, how much suspicion surrounded the Copenhagen meeting? and how many people world wide questioned the motives of it?
This idea is purely conceptual and divised as an alternative to the Copenhagen ideas.
Yes it could be asked that seperate countries create extra tax to input into a global fund of sorts, which as demonstrated causes alot of questions, so much that very little if any progress was made.
Money injections may not modify behaviour of all but the concept would be to bring the struggling nations up to speed and create a global situation where wealth is more evenly spread.
The fairness created by wealth sharing may cause some world behaviours and attitudes to change subtly.
Yes you are correct is saying that email communication maybe replaced, however personally I do not forsee that happening in the very near future.
There will no doubt be loop holes in the technology where people could take advantage of the system, all these angles would have to be ironed out before such a launch.
The secret to the concept is not how much individuals or companies pay individually, the secret is in the gross turn over of many many inexpensive units per day being executed.
Answer to question 5: The company is registered as a company therefore pays a higher levy to the ISP which is then distributed to the fund.
The guy looking for a job it would depend on whose computer he uses and who is the ISP provider of that computer.
Ie, It's his own computer? he pays a low rate through his ISP as a private individual.
It's the unemployment office's computer? that computer will be charged the higher bisiness rate from the ISP provider as a registered company.
Being a Govt. comp it may be paying quite a high rate per email.
There is no way to completly stop the risk of corruption, however structures, deterants to minimise this behaviour would be possible.
People involved in corruption of a world fund would not be popular, world wide.