Trump’s threat is what stoped this egregious tax from the EU!
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.
Win for Apple as EU Backs Down on Digital Services Tax
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok. By not taxing companies, companies gets to freeload infrastructures built for its citizens, regardless of where that company is based, be it domestic or international. Those same companies would then fix said infrastructure if it benefits them. Golden American first corporations philosophy.
It’s not like those companies gonna pass on their tax savings to consumers anyway. Oil companies are definitely among those.
This news is about a unified European tax on digital services. But, according to Wikipedia, some countries already have such a tax.
Digital Service Tax - Wikipedia
Apple's? Much like import tariffs, it is the end user who will likely be hit with the tax.
If you had pointed out a specific instance where a 'tech giant' was performing a specific bad act, that'd be one thing, but rather you wrote of 'curbing the power of tech giants,' as though them having that power was inherently bad/wrong. Why?
Why are you pushing to 'curb their power and influence?' What 'influence' is it wrong for them to have, and why?
I've seen this brought up on another forum, Quora. Some of the concerns about American foods are legit, some not.
Apparently much of our bread has a lot more sugar than is common in Europe, and I got the impression much of our food is more sugary. That sounds bad.
On the chlorine-washed chicken, well, chlorine is used as an anti-bacterial in tap water, so when we drink tapwater or brush our teeth, we get chlorine. If you swim in a public pool where the chlorine is strong enough in the air to sting your eyes or nose a bit, well... Does 'chlorine-washing' chicken really sound that bad?
GMO - genetically modified organisms. So what? Humans have been genetically modifying organisms by taking advantages of mutations and desired traits via selective breeding for millennia. Compare a wolf and a pug. Go look in nature and see if you find anything that looks quite like our big tomatoes. So companies found ways to alter the genetics directly. Why the paranoia over this?
Hormone usage in beef production. Wikipedia has a page on the Beef Hormone Controversy. One statement stands out from the article: "The EU often applies the precautionary principle very stringently in regards to food safety. The precautionary principle means that in a case of scientific uncertainty, the government may take appropriate measures proportionate to the potential risk (EC Regulation 178/2002)." It sounds like the E.U. is more conservative/risk averse regarding controversial techniques. Judge for yourself.
Something you didn't mention...Europeans who visit America often expressed bewilderment at what they perceive as very large food portion sizes.
As an American, what do I think of our food? Well, there's a lot of sugary ultra-processed food out there and coupled with our often less dense, less walkable living environments (hence our 'car culture) and preference for large portions, it can be 'obese-agenic' if you're not careful. Relative to the E.U., our culture tends to disapprove of the government responding to that by playing 'nanny state' and stepping in to 'protect us from ourselves' via regulation taking away our choices.
When someone is at risk of drowning, will cling to whoever is nearby and try to stay afloat regardless of drowning this other person.
That’s how the EU is acting, like it’s drowning.
So it starts to add rules, fines, laws, taxes, etc. in order to survive.
Oh well, there’s always something going all over the world.
That’s how the EU is acting, like it’s drowning.
So it starts to add rules, fines, laws, taxes, etc. in order to survive.
Oh well, there’s always something going all over the world.
For starters companies are already taxed by municipalities in various forms so I find it a bit obtuse to claim they are freeloading on infrastructure. Secondly many companies build their own infrastructure and in some cases support or build out infrastructure that benefits both themselves and the public.
Most importantly company operations boost economies through jobs for individuals and other entities, entire cities often thrive or die based on their success due to their economic impact. This is the very reason why governments give tax breaks.
I feel you don't grasp the fungible nature of money or underlying fundamentals of economics. There are both good and bad incentives abound, whether that be from government regulation, consumer behavior or the environment at large.
A company will reduce costs and charge what it can for a product or service to meet supply and demand at its equilibrium while maximizing return on its investments.
Humans are inherently selfish and tend to do what's in their best interest one way or another - governments and companies are no different. People can of course do selfless acts but more often than not such acts tend to fulfill a self-interest.
The case against the regulators appear to be the kind of things the courts have smacked regulators down for previously. Like in the Intel case, the regulators will have to defend their actions and it could be that having the clause that says “the rules are whatever we say the rules are” will hurt the DMA because the regulators couldn’t make up a rule and stick with it.wow. That’s a huge reversal.
This announcement came relatively quickly after Apple started their appeal:
Apple Challenges 'Unprecedented' €500M EU Fine Over App Store Steering Rules
Apple is appealing the 500 million euro ($570 million) fine that it is facing in the European Union for allegedly violating the Digital Markets...www.macrumors.com
Look no further than all of those social media companies maximising their algorithms effectiveness to glue everyone’s eyes on their app for as long as possible, including kids, without any due care. And in turn, young kids omit irl interactions in favour of the virtual ones, and said social media companies profit off of them too. Because they are capable of influencing a wide audience in big ways, every walk of life use that, both for good and bad reasons. I’m confident you’ve heard about social media destroying society and young generation stuff here and there.
That’s a pretty good example.
Most companies maximize product appeal, whether a restaurant maximizing taste, an amusement park maximizing pleasure, or a social media platform using algorithms to serve up to people what those people best react to. That's not sinister, it's marketing.
The parents permit and often provide provision for the young kids to have that access.
Anytime the public, young or old, has access to a technology and the liberty to use it as they see fit, some of them will choose to do so in ways some other people and authorities don't like. Prior to the Internet, the t.v. was vilified as the 'boob tube' and 'one-eyed babysitter,' derided for encouraging sedentary passive consumption. At least on social media (which includes this forum), people often actively participate and generate their own content (as we do here by posting).
In the U.S., for a range of reasons over time it has become less mainstream for children to wander the neighborhoods and surroundings unattended; there's now a term for it, 'free range kids,' whereas when I was a kid, we just had 'childhood.' Varied forms of social media keep kids socially networked with their buddies, let them play games together and share content, and thus have some benefits. Particularly in the U.S., where our population is mostly more spread out and many kids don't live in easy walking distance from most of their friends' homes (and public transportation for most children isn't a 'thing').
A lot of complaints about Facebook sound all too much like somebody wearing a shirt with a slogan 'McDonalds Gave Me A Heart Attack!' Hmmm...
We need to tax multi-trillion dollar companies more so that they can pass the taxes on to us so we can pay more taxes for them!!!! Right?
my dream is that the EU (the political state, not physically) gets obliterated.
Since the EU is not a political state, that's not going to happen. 🤷♂️
I guess many people dream about improving NA education, but that's not going to happen either.
Or the shareholders. Profits are accumulated in order to provide a return for investors. Not all costs can be passed on. Sometimes the investors have to take a bath.
That's true. It also applies to Research & Development, staffing (e.g.: layoffs), and possibly a number of other areas where we'd rather not see cutbacks.
I first wrote entity, but figured that would get criticized so I substituted “state” even though it wasn’t the correct term. So yes, you’re right. But you also know what I meant. So…
So then we don’t tax them but they tax us just as hard! Right?
Because they can price however they want. Heck, Apple can raise iCloud subscription price from $0.99/mo for 50GB to $99.99/mo tomorrow and folks using Apple devices can only suck it if they need to backup their devices to the cloud.
Love how any minor disagreement generally results in taking the context and adjusting it to an all or nothing situation (not to mention the context is different).
That would be a weak board compromising the future viability of the company in return for avoiding short term pushback from the shareholders. We have seen that play out plenty of times before. Thames Water, anyone?
Yeah I love it too: all or nothing. The simplest form of arguments: black and white.
Besides, I struggle to see taxing corporations more or less would change their intention to pass on taxes to consumers. If they don’t want to pay taxes anyway, why not just don’t tax them at all?
Apple will pass 100% of the tax to customers. However, because the prices will rise, the demand will drop slightly. Overall, it's worse for Apple and EU citizens.
So let's not act like Apple is the only loser here.
EU citizens can just shop an android device. Hardly any inconvenience for many I guess, if Apple no longer sell devices most EU citizens can afford. Besides, a slight demand drop won’t be felt by either EU citizens or Apple.