But what I'm saying is they can have their tax AND have quality too. Why not just say XX amount of money must be spent on local productions. Whether Apple wants to put that into 1 show or 50 is up to them as the content creators and has a better chance at yielding quality. Everyone wins.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple TV+ Could Face Ban in Europe Unless It Meets Proposed Requirement of 30% European Content
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
These law propositions are complete garbage. As a European citizen I'm ashamed of regulations like these. You don't mess with free markets unless you have a really good reason to do so.
I don't want Europe to turn into a land of crying babies demanding somebody gives them back their candy. If Europeans want to sell more movies and shows they should give a compelling reason (high quality at competitive prices) to Netflix, Apple, Amazon to buy their content instead of forcing them to "differentiate" their catalog with European productions.
This is ultimately only gonna hurt consumers. I wish I could fire all the people who had a hand in this new law proposition.
I don't want Europe to turn into a land of crying babies demanding somebody gives them back their candy. If Europeans want to sell more movies and shows they should give a compelling reason (high quality at competitive prices) to Netflix, Apple, Amazon to buy their content instead of forcing them to "differentiate" their catalog with European productions.
This is ultimately only gonna hurt consumers. I wish I could fire all the people who had a hand in this new law proposition.
Ya... here's the kicker. I don't even list to Hip Hop at all. Some US stuff is okay... but I'm not even LOOKING for it. Since in Germany we only seem to have some pop music and hip hop... and they (have to?!) inject local content... this is what crops up.German Hip Hop is BS. Try French like IAM, Diams, Suprême NTM, MC Solaar and so on.
I wish there was a toggle "show local content" on/off.
Ahh... good ol´Nöjesmassakern (Entertainment Massacre. A classic.Maybe Sweden can see it as an opportunity to sell "Nöjesmassakern" to a broader European audience?
How about Crown dependencies like the the Bailiwick of Jersey?
I am thinking about Bergerac with John Nettles.
Maybe some Lorry?
TL;DR
You're wrong, start studying international tax law, world economics and world politics before you make mindless remarks.
The long version:
The US doesn't pay taxes indeed, but the US does make tax laws therefore the retaliations shouldn't be to the people or legal entities that follow the laws, but to the US that makes the law.
And I'm sorry, but your representation of the tax laws are wrong.
First, anybody with any US connection pays taxes over their world income. So if you where born in Belgium, lived there all your life, never went on holiday anywhere else, never earned a penny outside of Belgium, you still need to pay US taxes. Why? Because your grandparents where on a visit in the States and your mother was born 6 weeks early in the US. Therefore your mother has a US relation and right to a passport, therefore you have a US relation. This US connection is a bases for the US to tax the income you earn. This is called taxing on world income.
The only country that does that is the US. Oh, and Nigeria but do you really want me to compare Nigeria to the US?
People can not escape this: the US has this enforced by forcing banks world wide to declare US taxable people's income. If banks don't do that, the US will deny them access to dollar transactions, which in return will make a bank go bankrupt, so in effect you enforce it.
But following your advice to choose the most beneficial, I would say that most white Americans have European roots, therefore we are going to tax them on their world income, here in Europe, by European tax laws. So be prepared to pay us 58% of your income over your live long earnings!
But the real odd part is that the US-government also vehemently defends the rights of US corporations NOT to pay any tax anywhere in the world.
I will make an example of the double Irish with a dutch sandwich. No, this isn't a lunch sandwich with a nice Guinness.
It is a tax avoiding scheme where US corporations pay no tax in the country they earn their money, but neither pay tax in the US.
E.g. Apple sells an iCloud subscription in France. They do not pay VAT, they do not pay any profit tax in France, because they are "located" in Ireland. They have no substance in Ireland, or at least not any substance that is in line with their earnings. That is important because they can say that they are not really located there.
So what to do next? You don't want to pay the (lowest in EU) taxes in Ireland! Simple, you have a local entity that sells a service, then you send the profits to an Irish company, then on to a Dutch company and then back to a second Irish company headquartered in a tax haven.
These payments (that take out any potential profit) are on paper a payment for royalties, IP, minimal services etc. etc.
The end result is that there is a loss for the local entity that made the sale. So no taxes there and often a tax return or compensation for the loss.
Then there are no taxes for profits in the tax haven, so that is untaxed as well.
The real beauty in this scheme is here: US companies need to pay profit tax over their "world income". But they don't. Apple has at this moment a cash mountain of $252 BILLION in the island of Jersey. They can't touch this money, if they bring it back to the US they need to pay profit taxes. But as long as it stays in Jersey that's not problem.
So they wait until profit tax rates are lowered, and they are pushing hard for that.
But what good is money if you can't touch it?
Well, if they need money, they lend on the world markets with money on the island of Jersey as a security. They don't need to lend money, they have plenty from earnings in the US, but it can be cheaper to lend money for a ultra low interest (perhaps at times even negative, so you earn money lending) while they invest the tax money, earning them a bit as well.
That is how you don't pay taxes and earn money with money you shouldn't have had.
That is why France (and a few other countries) have introduced a e-commerce tax. And Trump didn't like that idea, so he retaliated by import taxing German cars (that did hurt), French cheese and wine (that hardly did hurt financially, but something to do with French pride), etc. etc. this in return went to the WTO, which Trump has made totally ineffective by vetoing appointment of judges as they might have slapped him on his tiny grubby grabbing hands. :-D
So the EU made a petty gesture back: you need 30% EU content on your streaming service because you'll wipe out EU culture. Or what ever dribble came from the EU commission for flimsy reasoning.
In the end it's all tit-for-tat petty behaviour, but it is about serious amounts of money. $252 Billion in profits was revealed in 2017 by the "paradise papers" and just for Apple. Imagine what Amazon, Google, Facebook, Insta, Snap and all the other nameless huge corporations have on that cash mountain?
You're wrong too in so many ways.
Last edited:
It’s a money issue right. EU would not want to let a foreign arm to control the media and entertainment. The success of Apple TV+ would put more competition on EU equivalents. EU members don’t make money off Apple’s success there. I would say, it’s easier just to tax it based on content and implement a quota system on American Movies and TVs.What a dumb law. Let the people decide if they want to watch it or not. Ask people in Europe if they prefer Hollywood movies or movies produced in Europe.
Hollywood movies wouldn’t get so much airtime on European TV if they didn’t get big ratings
Hollywood Films Still Dominate European TV
Two-thirds of feature films broadcast on European TV are American, a new study reveals, with less than a third European.www.hollywoodreporter.com
Bull. It is simply because politicians like to get photos with successful local actresses, and get invited to the producers’ dinner parties. It’s looking after their mates, while it actually imposes costs on the ordinary worker. I am really starting to despise the political class.
Apple tries to be an global company but fails spectacularly regarding content. Luckily there are other channels for content. Would I subscribe to TV+ if there was some good Nordic content - possibly. Without good Nordic content? Less likely. Should EU legislate - no. Tax Apple/Netflix/Disney+ and use the money on European content on an European platform instead.
Are you American (Brits) not interested at all in other countries? I like to watch crime series from other countries.
Are you American (Brits) not interested at all in other countries? I like to watch crime series from other countries.
How do they define European content? Content made in Europe, or by Europe? A lot of Hollywood movies for example have been shot, partially or completely, in the UK in recent years. Does that count? Or does it mean only stuff by the BBC and other European equivalents?
Either way, stupid rule and not the way to do it. They should be enticing content creators to their shores, not restricting content delivery.
Either way, stupid rule and not the way to do it. They should be enticing content creators to their shores, not restricting content delivery.
You mean that the small number of shows and films they have acquired are targeted at what they consider the broadest appeal for the 100+ markets in which they launched?
That is the beauty of the streaming universe, and why mandates like this are stupid.
Do you think their are enough people who will only subscribe to the service if there is Nordic content to make it worth producing Nordic content? If not, then the only way that content appears on a service like Apple TV+ is if it is good enough that people want to watch it despite it being Nordic content.
So is Netflix the only streaming service to which you subscribe, or is there a local Nordic streaming service as well?
Good we agree.
You mean tax the services (which really means tax you), and then use your money to produce subsidized content? If Europeans want to be taxed to generate subsidized content, I am totally OK with that.
I am interested in good shows. I do not really care about their country of origin. I tend not to like dubbed shows because the lip sync issues annoy me, and while I will watch them and will also watch subtitled shows, the barrier to entry for either is much higher as they require much more work. I watch TV/Movies for entertainment and relaxation (and maybe information from documentaries) the more effort it takes to watch/follow them, the better they have to be to make it worth it. Given how much great content is available in English (and French that is easy enough for me to follow), I do not need to go out of my way to find more programs that are more work.
This is a tricky one. I can see both sides of the argument. All of the big streaming services are based in the US and so it makes sense that they have mainly US content. However, they've made the decision to enter foreign markets so it's not unreasonable for those markets to expect content that represents their local culture and citizens. Whether that should be achieved by enforcement or by incentives of some kind is an interesting topic for debate. There are no easy answers.
I enjoy US based content, but I also absolutely love home grown content. I fear that the growth and dominance of US based streaming services will mean that the fantastic programmes we get in the UK that are made in the UK will become less and less attractive to broadcasters to commission and production companies to make and that's a future that, for the UK in particular, I don't relish.
I enjoy US based content, but I also absolutely love home grown content. I fear that the growth and dominance of US based streaming services will mean that the fantastic programmes we get in the UK that are made in the UK will become less and less attractive to broadcasters to commission and production companies to make and that's a future that, for the UK in particular, I don't relish.
As How Fortune 500 Companies Avoid Paying Income Tax shows this is not the case.
Although the corporate tax rate has been reduced, companies are still using tax loopholes to save money. This includes finding ways to shift U.S. profits to foreign subsidiaries in countries with lower tax rates, a practice known as an offshore tax-shelter.
The TCJA leaves open offshoring incentives for companies to save on taxes. Companies do not have to pay taxes on income earned abroad until that income is repatriated from abroad. That tax, however, can be deferred indefinitely if the income is held abroad indefinitely. This money held abroad can be borrowed against and even used to invest in assets in the U.S. (Brookings Institution. "Taxing Multinational Companies in the 21st Century." Accessed Sept. 25, 2020).
Don’t want to rain on your party, but isn’t that what is just wrote? Also your reply doesn’t seem to correspond with the partial quote of my post.
I’m guessing you live in some very big German city with a lot of migrants - I live in the countryside (Schwarzwald) and situation is completely reversed: very few people speak good English and local German television dominates.
It’s a bit of a cliché to say - but don’t assume that your big city bubble experience applies to the rest of the land.
I have also experience of French TV - and it is even more prominent than German.
The flaw in that is it assumes there are no "local culture" in the US and that US programming represents the interests of every locality be it Louisiana (don't they still speak French to a degree there?), much of the West (a high amount of Spanish and Spanglish speakers in those regions), and I think you get the idea. And this is not even addressing the many Native American tribes.
To anyone who actually looks into this realizes just how silly the EU's claims are.
No. You stated "This is simply a retaliation against the US for not paying a single dime in taxes for services provided in the EU. Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft et al. are paying way too little vat and profit taxes. "
Again:
Although the corporate tax rate has been reduced, companies are still using tax loopholes to save money. This includes finding ways to shift U.S. profits to foreign subsidiaries in countries with lower tax rates, a practice known as an offshore tax-shelter.
In otherwords the US company is paying the taxes of the other country (ie paying the EU) to get out of paying the IRS.
That the EU doesn't have a clue is shown in EU Commission to appeal Apple ruling in Ireland over $14.9 billion tax case. The General Court of the EU ruled that the idea that "Member States cannot give tax benefits to selected companies — this is illegal under EU state aid rules.” was invalid:
"The commission did not succeed in showing to the requisite legal standard that there was an advantage” for Apple, they declared, and “the commission did not prove, in its alternative line of reasoning, that the contested tax rulings were the result of discretion exercised by the Irish tax authorities."
Apple payed Ireland the agreed to tax (ie invalidating that "not paying a single dime in taxes for services provided in the EU" you claimed). The EU Commission didn't like the deal and made a claim that their equivalent of a Circuit Court said was BS. The really hysterial thing is Apple had already paid the fine a year ago. If the EU's highest court sides with Apple then the EU will have pay it back (along with the interest for a total of US$15 billion in 2019).
Sorry, if they feel that American companies are not paying their share of taxes, they have a simple solution, they can raise taxes on them. France has proposed exactly that.
Sorry, this is simply not the case. U.S. citizens are taxed on their world wide income, with credit for taxes paid in other jurisdictions. "Someone born on a an American plane" might be able to claim U.S. citizenship (the case law on this not solid, and is even less clear if they were in international airspace), but they would have to apply for it and have it granted. Given that requires pretty serious actions, it is not something that would just happen.
Again, just not a true statement. The U.S. has a law that requires that any bank with deposits from American citizens report deposits and income earned, just like U.S. banks are required to do. It is a misguided law to prevent tax dodgers, but it does not "force banks to refuse services", there are some banks who choose not to take deposits from U.S. Citizens because they do not have enough of them and do not do any business in the U.S. and so do not want the hassle.
Having said that, this is only for U.S. citizens. Your hypothetical foreigner born on a U.S. Flag Carrier in international airspace or a woman whose baby was month premature and born in a U.S. hospital would not be a U.S. citizen unless they wanted to be.
You seem to conflate every accusation against every U.S. company. The big 5 studios have been making about the same number of movies for many years. Thanks to streaming and digital cinema distribution, there are way more independent and small productions then ever before. Unlike Europe, Canada, India and others, there are no local content rules for U.S. distribution, meaning that anyone who produces interesting content can freely distribute any where in the U.S. with no restrictions.
However, as I have said before, if you want to tax yourselves to pay local content producers to produce shows that are not economically viable, I have no problem with that. You can enact a tax on streaming services and use that revenue for it. Unfortunately, their is no consensus to do that, so instead they have proposed this back door solution.
As I said, were I in control of any of these streaming services, I would license tens of thousands of hours of cheap, old, library content from the smallest niches and make that available. I would not even bother to subtitle it. Make it only available in the original language.
Ah yes this wonderful little shell game. Instead of going after Apple why doesn't the EU close the blasted loop hole? I understand why that does't happen with the US (like or not we are effectively in Gilded Age 2.0) but why doesn't the EU deal with this nonsense? Or they afraid that everybody would pull a UK if they did?
Not a big fan of such regulations but more diversity on Apple TV+ would not harm. It has been refreshing to see Teheran (similarly to Money Heist on Netflix).
Part of the existing content is very US centric (which I understand and accept) - not really engaging for somebody from "rest of world". If you promote your service globally and aspire to be successful globally you need to propose a content that is appealing to this wider audience.
Part of the existing content is very US centric (which I understand and accept) - not really engaging for somebody from "rest of world". If you promote your service globally and aspire to be successful globally you need to propose a content that is appealing to this wider audience.
As are yours.
No. U.S. Citizens and permanent residents pay taxes on their world wide income, but can deduct taxes paid to foreign governments against their tax owed. I do not know what you mean by "any US connection", but I can give a specific example of something that would seem to fit that description but for which no U.S. taxes are due: A non-Citizen working outside the U.S. for an American company is not required to file U.S. taxes.
You are wrong on almost every point here. First, the mother in question would have had to claim U.S. citizenship to even qualify her child to claim U.S. citizenship. Second, for the child to claim U.S. citizenship (something that either the parent would have had to do, or the child can do on his or her own at age 18) the parent would have had to live in the U.S. for at least a year before the birth of the child. Third, to be granted U.S. citizenship, the child (or the parent on the child's behalf if under 18) has to fill in a lot of paperwork and prove all these points. This is not something that the U.S. does on its own.
Finally, if the parent did request U.S. citizenship for the child and the child did not want it, it is trivial for him or her to renounce it. In most cases they would not even be subject to exit taxes.
Here is a link to the relevant U.S. Code (it is pretty clear, but if you want to read how US Customer and Immigration service interprets this code look here).
Actually, the current list of countries other than the U.S. that tax non-resident citizens (and permanent residents) are Libya, Eritrea and the Philippines.
Again, people can easily escape it. They can renounce their U.S. citizenship (or permanent resident status). They may be subject to an exit tax, depending on circumstances. The reporting requirement does not make the bank enforce the U.S. tax code, if just ensures that the U.S. citizen reports all his or her income as required by law. I would think that you would approve of a requirement like that, as you seem to want companies to pay taxes they do not owe, how can you oppose ensuring that people pay taxes they do owe? Banks that do no do business with in the U.S. may decide that they reporting requirements are too onerous, and deny accounts to U.S. citizens (and permanent residents). That is their choice.
While these rules are misguided, they are not beyond reason.
Sorry, if you followed the U.S. example, you would just have more people renounce their citizenship in high tax EU countries and move to lower tax ones. Research Swedish and French tax exiles for examples of this already. As we have already established, U.S. taxes only apply to U.S. citizens, not people with a fictional connection shrouded in the mists of time.
The U.S. government defend the rights of U.S. companies (and its citizens) to be treated fairly according to local law. It does not require special treatment, it just opposes treating U.S. companies differently than local ones (as an example France's proposed "Digital Tax" that is tailored to only apply to American companies.
Tax avoidance is completely legal. If the various EU countries do not like the rules they have made, they have every right to change them. What they do not have the right to do is to make rules that only apply to American companies in unfair ways.
Apple pays more taxes than any other company in the world. In Ireland, Apple accounts for 7% of all corporate tax revenue.