EU Plans to Tax Internet Sales 440
Arctic Fox writes: "In a bid to help European online sales, the EU is planning to tax online transactions. The article on Yahoo, says that the taxes will apply only to products downloaded from the internet, such as software,videos and music. They may elect to tax physical items (books, hardware,etc) at a later date. American companies will be forced to charge European customers the appropriate VAT in their home country. No details on how this will be enforced."
Enforcement? (Score:1)
Re:Enforcement? (Score:2)
On a related note, going through customs recently got me wondering about import duties on electronic file downloads across borders. Since the import duty is supposed to be on the value of the item (not what you claim you paid for it -- "I got this Rolex for $5"), then what is the "value" of Apache [apache.org]? Should I claim warze even though I pay nothing for them? Should I shut up, lest I give them ideas?
Complying is "in their interest", apparently (Score:2, Informative)
Quote:
How would these proposed VAT rules be enforced in the case of non-EU companies?
These proposals would require VAT registration only in the case of larger operators (over 100,000 of sales to private consumers per annum in the EU). Smaller operators and those with only occasional sales into the Community would be excluded from the scope of the tax.
In the case of larger operators, it is in their own interests to be seen to be in compliance with their legal obligations (including VAT obligations) arising from Internet trading because they themselves want to ensure that others respect their obligations in respect of the operators' rights, for example as regards copyright or other intellectual property rights. Legitimate operators certainly do not want to give credence to the idea that Internet is a zone where laws do not apply - the incentive to voluntary compliance should not therefore be underestimated.
This is the way it should be (Score:1, Interesting)
And before all you anti-state libertarians jump in, remind me - how many millions of Americans have no health insurance because you won't pay for one?
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, the government does a bad enough job with what it's already responsible for, why should we trust it to manage health care?
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, while there are inherent inefficiencies in a state-provision or state-funded health system, there are inherent inefficiencies in a private-provision system too. In a state-provision system, there is bureaucracy and the lack of a competitive incentive. In a private system, there is over-supply (else there couldn't be competition), potential gaps (there is no market incentive to provide any particular service beyond its being profitable and not all services will be profitable), and the generation of huge amounts of information related to billing because of the third-party payer system. Additionally, there are micro- and macro-economic efficiencies associated with state-provision--for instance, a state-provision system gains efficiencies of scale as an insurer of risk and as a purchaser by virtue of universal coverage. See the Wanless report produced for the UK gov't by that notorious socialist Derek Wanless (ex-CEO of a big UK retail bank and not a man to look kindly on unnecessary state involvement in health) for examples.
My third point is, you already do pay a lot for healthcare through taxes -- about 7% of GDP. You pay another 8% of GDP in health insurance/direct payments. For that, you get potentially excellent healthcare but lack of coverage for some people (c40m) and variable coverage of some diseases. Here in the UK, by contrast, we pay about 8% (shortly to be somewhat more...) and we get universal coverage, more variable care and never up to the top standards that your CEOs and rockstars can afford, and some diseases also not properly covered. There are no 100% correct choices, but there are advantages and disadvantages to each and it's important to be clear-eyed and clear-minded about them.
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2, Interesting)
B) People who don't have health insurance almost universally (there are exceptions) don't have it because either they choose not to have it, or because they made poor choices which resulted in their inability to have it. Geez, even fast food places offer health insurance to full-time employees! At Chick-Fil-A here in Georgia they offer it at no cost to the employee!!!
C) Well, whys hould it be cheaper...hmm maybe because we're not a part of the EU and we shouldn't subject to your silly socialist laws and regulations (wake up, socialism does not work in the real world! It results in a crap economy, crap education, and crap health care, and eventually, pissed off citizens!) We're a sovereign nation. Instead of trying to get us to enforce your laws, try getting ISPs in your country's to enforce it. Charge a small user's fee. Then you'd make money off people who didn't even make online purchases...
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2)
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2, Funny)
Also, you're never going to have any kids, 'cos Slashdot Libertarians never get laid.
If I've misrepresented your argument, I apologize... I just don't give enough of a fuck to read that sort of stuff.
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2)
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2)
If I download software from a UK site I have to pay VAT (17.5% sales tax) - why should it be cheaper to download it from the US.
I don't have a problem with the UK taxing its citizens regardless of where they purchase the item. But that doesn't give them a right to force U.S. companies to act as the tax collector. How are they going to stop UK citizens from evading the sales tax? Not my problem.
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2)
If they don't like it they can refuse to sell to people with UK shipping/billing addresses.
This is about software delivered over the internet. There isn't necessarily a shipping/billing address in the first place.
US companies that sell goods the traditional way to British consumers have to register for VAT
That's not true.
Re:You are an ignorant WANKER (Score:2)
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2, Interesting)
American tax laws require the buyer to pay sales tax in the state in which he purchased it. It then expects the buyer to report these taxes when he files his tax returns. The systems seems to be doing the same thing, you pay sales tax to your local municipality
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2)
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2)
Re:This is the way it should be (Score:2)
If that's the best that you can do, get up, turn off your computer, and walk away. Never look back. Probably just strikes a personal nerve with you, are you or your parents living on food stamps or something?
Are they on crack?? (Score:1)
Sorry guys, do like the US. Leave it up to the consumer to pay their state's sales tax (like that's ever done!@$%)
Unconstitutional? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)
The EU is closing the same hole that exists in the US where due to historical weirdness there is no sales tax for interstate trade. From an EU point of view it removes a tax loophole for offshore bodies and creates a non discriminatory regime.
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:2)
Yes, I've noticed that both Norway and France have had a recent surge of support for anti-foreigner fascist parties. Yeesh, wasn't World War II enough for you folks, do we have to go through this again? Hostility and violence do not reduce cultural differences.
The EU is closing the same hole that exists in the US where due to historical weirdness there is no sales tax for interstate trade.
Wrong, there is sales tax for interstate trade. However, since Rhode Island has no authority over California, there is no way that Rhode Island can force a California-based company to collect sales tax on their behalf. Therefore, it is up to the purchaser to report his purchase and pay the tax. Obviously, no one does this. I'm not sure how this situation is any different. How is, say, France, going to force Walgreens to collect sales tax when someone orders a couple boxes of Rogaine? Walgreens has no international presence, so I can't imagine how they'd do it.
Re:Unlike the United States of Enron (Score:2)
Of course...uh, I didn't buy anything from out-of-state companies online.
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:2, Interesting)
However, if a US company wants to ship stuff in Europe from the US, well, they have to pay the tariffs and taxes, very much like it would work the other way. Otherwise, EU customs are free confiscate or surcharge the imported goods, and, if the US company has assets and representative within EU jusdiriction, they can also sue them in court for tax and tariff fraud.
Let's say Barnes and Nobles refuses to pay the VAT on books exported to Europe, while Amazon accepts to pay. The customs will block B&N shipments everytime they can, probably with the help of the carriers who obviously want to maintain good relations with the Customs services. B&N will have a lot of disgruntled customers walking to Amazon. QED, B&N will prepay the VAT or get out of the EU market. For virtual stuff, software, music, the same reasoning applies by blocking some IP addresses, for instance.
Shipment impounding on VAT payment are already happening and this EU directive simply aims at making compliance easier and less costly for importers.
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:2)
EU therefore has interfered with the sovereignty of the USA. USA (or any country), being sovereign (according to any national constitution), must not allow other countries to enforce their laws within its terrirories, without international agreement. Else the USA government (or that of the country in question) fails in its basic obligation: protecting its sovereignty.
The US citizens do not pay tax to EU, and they did not elect the officials in European governments. Thus they have no obligation to the EU in any way, to implement the VAT or whatever.
If the EU carries this out with a treaty with the USA, that's another matter. But right now there is no treaty.
Things like this will just increase in the future. The only way to resolve them will be to redefine the concept of sovereignty, to that of the "sovereignty of the Earth", and to the unification of the planet under a global government.
How to make it work (Score:2)
A treaty would be irrelevant, because the US government would completely ignore/dismiss it as it saw fit anyway. If they're prepared to ignore environmental treaties, or international criminal court treaties that <gasp> might actually make their senior figures accountable for the war crimes they commit, then do you really think they'd respect something like this?
A much simpler solution presents itself, however. We just levy an import tax instead. Customs in EU states just stop US imports on entry if the tax isn't paid. If you want to ship here, you play by our rules, simple as that.
In the short term, this might annoy EU consumers who couldn't get stuff available from the US, but in the medium term, if the demand is there, the supply will follow. If the US government/vendors choose to be uncompetitive by not respecting the rules of others, they'll simply lose out. The market in the EU is plenty big enough for other alternatives to appear, given time.
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:2)
This makes sense. However, these business aren't necessisarily doing business in EU. They are selling downloads on US based servers. The EU wants to force the vendor to determine if the buyer is in the EU and collect taxes for the EU. That vendor in the US isn't doesn't even have to intend to sell their product to a EU customer. THat is putting an unfair burden on the vendor in the US to enforce EU laws. Why should US vendors have to implement some method of determining if a customer resides in the EU, and why should they be forced to handle the collection of the taxes, and all the paperwork involved. How is this also going to be enforced? Does the EU suddenly have the right to come audit US companies that have no EU presense. If the EU wants US vendors to collect taxes for them, then a protion of that tax should be payed to the vendor for collecting the taxes. The US vendor shouldn't be forced to do work for foreign countries for free.
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the French can rule that the US judgement is unconstitutional (with respect to France) because it interfers with the enforcement of French law.
In the age of the Internet, the overlap of national soverengities may just increase
Mirror Time! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Slight problem... (Score:1)
Well, that hardly surprises me. How do you tax something ethereal?
enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:enforcement? (Score:2)
Backwards thinking are you.
She gets refunds because she's a US citizen purchasing goods and bringing them home, where in theory she has to pay a duty to US customs.
The EU charging VAT on downloads applies to European citizens purchasing products from US companies. If they came to the US and bought a $500 packaged software here, they would pay a duty on import to the EU. The theory is that downloading is similar to carrying in and therefore the product is subject to customs rules.
Already Happening (Score:5, Informative)
So, I found a map, located the depot, and trapsed over there. I handed over my card, and the guy said "So, you've been buying from Amazon have you? They're cracking down on all internet purchases you know?". I had to pay the VAT (sales tax) on my CDs bought in the states before I could collect them.
Apparently, almost all internet based purchases from major US sites are now already attacting VAT charges in the UK. I know a friend who bought from Think Geek got stung a few weeks before for the VAT on his purchase.
Re:Already Happening (Score:2)
FYI: UK joined the EU in 1973 (Score:3, Informative)
Steps towards UK membership (from the EC-UK website):
Re:Already Happening (Score:2)
Shipping and handling is not counted for customs, so perhaps £6.70 wasnt worth the vat (£1.20 extra), or perhaps UPS had something to do with it.
Nice of them to put "If seal broken check contents" tape arround the box though
Re:Already Happening (Score:2)
Re:Already Happening (Score:2)
I first bought from the USA in 96 and got charged VAT AND IMPORT DUTY.
Some items are import duty exempt (varies from 0% to 22%) and some are VAT exempt (17.5% in the UK) and you have to pay BOTH + handling fee.
Tip - have the shipper mark it as a gift worth $35.
Re:Already Happening (Score:2)
The only thing I've ever been taxed on a was a 6 GBP cable I ordered from Matrox in the UK.
This can't be cost effective... (Score:2)
Re:This can't be cost effective... (Score:2)
This is nothing to do with the new legislation (Score:2, Informative)
You;ll find this normally does not happen as there are so many parcels coming through that it would be impossible for customs to deal with them all. Net result is they ignore most (but not all)m smaller items and low value items.
Occasionally you will be unlucky and have a small package targetted. This happened to me with some t-shirts I ordered from the US.
Re:Already Happening (Score:2)
Oh dear - gross oversimplification above (almost moronic). Right - import levies include
depending on your import.
For example lets consider software. According to UK customs software can either be considered goods or services. If it is considered a good then it attracts VAT. If it is a service then it does not.
If you order a computer game (which is a good) the value of the package is less than 18GBP then you do not pay either VAT or import duty.
If you order scientific software for the purposes of research of value greater then 18GBP then you have to pay import duty but not VAT.
All these only apply if you are exporting into the UK from outside the EU - if you are inside the EU then there is no import duty but there may be VAT.
If you are importing e.g. Tin from the US to the EU then you do not have to pay import duty but you may have to pay VAT.
Re:Already Happening (Score:2)
This reminds me ... (Score:2, Funny)
Me and a friend snuck out one night and t.p.'d a guys house that we knew. We even told him we'd be coming. But we waited until like 2 or 3 a.m. and he fell asleep watching out for us.
It was awesome - he woke up, looked outside and thought it had snowed. It was great - we told all our friends about it. I told my folks. They thought it was very funny.
Then they talked to my buddy's parents. And my dad comes to me and says, "Gary's parent's did not like what he did. They grounded him. It wouldn't be fair if nothing happened to you- you are grounded too."
The EU is saying "Hey we can't screw our own companies and rake in the taxes because the consumers have options. We have to make sure we screw everybody."
Losers.
.
Re:This reminds me ... (Score:2, Informative)
"subscription" (Score:2)
The article is pretty vague on the specifics of what gets taxed. Is a subscription service subject to the VAT? So if someone wanted to subscribe to a web publication, would the tax have to be paid?
If not, then there's a workaround for this tax: Call it a "subscription" to a particular area of a web site where the product is downloadable "for free" by all subscribers to that section.
And if the subscriber is an educational institution, you can charge them a "subscription fee" for every person in the school and get around that pesky per-CPU pricing. Sweet!
HUH? (Score:2, Redundant)
In a bid to help European online sales, the EU is planning to tax online transactions
quick post here -- but how exactly will TAXING online transaction HELP online sales?
seems like a real nonstarter, or simply a mistake
Tax all ya want... (Score:5, Funny)
I strongly suspect "being forced to act as a tax-collector on behalf of a foreign country" would fall in the same boat. Heck, given the state of .US tax law, it wouldn't surprise me if it was considered seditious behavior. ;-)
D
Re:Tax all ya want... (Score:2)
It would seem to lead the company to be officially an 'agent or acting on behalf of a foreign government'. I don't see how it's enforced if the company has no presence in the other country. It also seems the collection plays havoc with US tax laws. If I'm a company and collect sales tax, obviously that is not ultimately taxed on federal returns. However, if I collect VAT for some foreign country, I don't see anyplace that'd legally be deductible... does anyone else??
Re:Tax all ya want... (Score:2)
Just thinking out loud....
How it will be enforced (Score:2, Insightful)
The EU can't do much about sites run strictly by outfits in the US. Mom and pop type online stores are far too numerous (and many don't even ship to Europe, anyway).
What ths is really aimed at is the Yahoo's and Amazon's, who do maintain a presence in the EU. Because they have offices and such in the EU, that does place them under EU jurisdiction, to some extent.
Amazon has at least one order fulfillment center in the EU (I want to say in Rotterdam, but I could be wrong). Yahoo has offices in Munich, Paris, London, and other EU cities.
In short, if you don't want to be charged, the best course may simply be to never physically do business in the EU. Don't open a Parisian office. If you need to be in Europe, Switzerland's not in the EU.
Impact? (Score:3, Insightful)
These are striking numbers, even if US-centric. The EU should really be careful before instituting any such thing...
Help internet sales? (Score:2, Interesting)
So the difference from today (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway before ranting about having to pay taxes on internet sales, I just wanted to say that the taxes already are there if you follow the law, but with the change so that the internet companies have to charge for the taxes, it should be easier for us buyers to get stuff from the internet without having to deal with all those mails and bills from customs afterwards.
The only big hurdle is I see it is a way to implement it without killing the small shops outthere.
Fuck that! (Score:3, Interesting)
When are governments going to grasp the idea that none of them have any jurisdiction over the Internet?
Re:Fuck that! (Score:2)
I worked for a dot-com in the UK which had to charge VAT on all purchases, based on the location to which it was shipping the item.
This is even worse, because it applies to items which aren't even being shipped. What do we use here, IP address? What about proxy servers? It's a nightmare.
When are governments going to grasp the idea that none of them have any jurisdiction over the Internet?
(Un)fortunately if governments gave up jurisdiction of the internet they wouldn't be able to tax their people any more. More and more sales and employment are based on information. I can work for a software company completely over the internet, both in work and in payment. You can be sure that the government is going to want to collect income tax on that employment.
Re:Fuck that! (Score:2)
However, I recently looked into purchasing a Zaurus. Not being able to find anywhere online to order one, I emailed Sharp, who informed me that the device was only being sold in the US and Germany. So I checked a few German and US sites, and discovered that the only place I could get one was from one company in the States, who *might* be willing to ship one to me, provided I called them on an 800 number.
Well, I've given up trying to get one for the moment, it's just too much hassle. So Sharp's lost a (potential) customer.
Sorry, I am in a ranting mood today.
What?! (Score:3, Funny)
In other news, in a bid to help women feel safer while walking alone at night, the government is planning to legalize rape.
WTF?!
Re:What?! (Score:2)
However, the prices are cheaper in the US for most things, which means that even factoring in shipping, it's still cheaper for Europeans to buy many things from North America.
One more reason... (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry. That was rude and mean... but honestly... even the FRENCH hate the French.
So.... (Score:2)
Are they going to tax "sharing"?
Seems like a poweful disincentive to actually obey copyright law to me (but what do I know?)
I wouldn't put it past them (Score:2)
I think it was Greece that required all anarchists to register with the government (I find no evidence of such a law online, it may be apocryphal.) With Zen governance like that, you can do anything.
From an infrastructure standpoint, how would they tax downloaded information? There are a couple of ways-
1) The simplest way is to track the credit cards of everyone in the country. I have no idea what kind of credit cards Swedes even have (WTF is a "eurocard"? Is that real?) but I bet they use them for 95% of internet commerce. You could do the same thing with online checks, if europeans use those. You just make all the nations financial institutions report it to big brother whenever they transfer money out of the country. I bet Sweden does this already. This way you can enforce it entirely in-house. This would "catch" 95% of transactions.
2) Tax incoming data. Anytime you get more than X data over the course of some length of time, the government assumes it costs money. They tax you at some rate, unless a vendor turns in an electronic receipt for the purchase. Vendors that wanted to sell to europeans would have to play ball or their customers would get footed with crazy bills. "Maximum disruption, minimum benefit?" Yes, but I doubt the people in brussels care. This has the advantage of "catching" people who got their credit cards from the bank of antigua; a tiny sliver of the population who might otherwise escape. It would also tax filesharing.
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
There are good reasons there's is no state tax on interstate commerce in the US. You start getting really stupid situations otherwise.
-
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:2)
It is the responsibility of the company to make sure they comply with all local laws that they do business with.
Now you are right. It is very difficult, if not impossible to enforce this. That is partially the problem with the US attempt to tax the internet.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Right, but businesses have to comply with their local tax laws. California can not force a New York store to collect tax.
For a company to do business in a country, it is _their_ responsibility to make sure they follow the laws of the country that they are doing business with.
The only rational interpetation is that the company is doing business where it is located.
(A) It is impossible to reliably determine the location of someone on the internet.
(B) It is impossible for a company to be aware of and comply with every local law in the world. (Expecially since different local laws can have mutually exclusive requirements.)
This is the same reason that Yahoo got sued because they allowed people to auction Nazi memorbilia on a site that can be access from Germany.
I believe it was France, but that's irrelevant. Yahoo-France was in compliance with the law. They went after Yahoo-US. I believe they got a "conviction", but they had no juridiction and zero enforcement power. These are idiots then got to stand around with their thumbs up their asses while they congratulated themselves on their "victory".
They can make it illegal for their citizens to shop at Yahoo-US. They can confiscate imports. They can not in any way regulate foriegn activities.
-
This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, is this 2002 or 1992? Seriously, the other part of the news (i.e. taxing online transactions for online goods) is totally valid, because it's not being done yet, AFAIK.
There is a concept of EU's taxation area, which includes pretty much the whole EU with a couple of exceptions (like Jersey). Since something like 1993 there has been the EU "Single Market", and most physical goods imported from elsewhere have been subject to VAT. If I order something from for example the US or Australia or Japan I have to pay VAT if the package gets caught in the customs. If I order something from the UK or France or Germany, who cares, it's from the taxation area, and taxes are assumed to have already been paid. Many European online vendors have VAT already included in their prices, and for example Amazon.co.uk [amazon.co.uk] charges the VAT based on the destination country.
At least some Canadian online vendors go around VAT by sending their shipments to the customer from some country in the EU. The package isn't subject to VAT if it's sent from France or Belgium. I don't know the legality of this, but the concept sounds somewhat dubious, despite allowing cheaper prices for the customer.
At least in Finland the key is to order less in one package, because our customs don't bother to charge less than 10 euros. I have something like 90 DVD titles (some of them being 5-6 disc boxes), with almost all of them being ordered from the net, and only 15 of them originate from the EU taxation area. I haven't paid VAT (22% in Finland) or customs (3.5%) for a single one of the imported ones, because I order only one or two discs at a time.
More information about VAT is available at European Union's VAT info page [eurunion.org].
Re:This is news? (Score:2)
Sounds to me like 1984
Related to US stance on steel? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Related to US stance on steel? (Score:2)
Remember, GWB started this by imposing a protectionist trade agreement.
Re:Related to US stance on steel? (Score:2)
Re:Related to US stance on steel? (Score:2)
The tariff on steel went up first before the EU decided to retaliate.
I love how allies treat each other this way...
Re:Related to US stance on steel? (Score:2)
Re:Related to US stance on steel? (Score:2)
A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Europeans already pay VAT (Value Added Tax) on purchases made within their own countries or the EU as a whole.
This means that buying stuff from the US can work out cheaper than buying it from your own country. So, by forcing US companies to tax EU citizens on purchases, this will force consumers to buy from e-commerce sites in the EU.
This sounds fair enough, but it's actually extremely unfair. For a start, many things are far cheaper in the US, or aren't ever available in the EU.
I'm a big Jewel fan, and her album came out in the US last year, so I ordered it from Amazon.com and paid about £15 in all, including delivery. Amazon.co.uk wanted £20!
I'd fully support the EU's ideas on this one if things in the EU were competitively priced. They're not. The EU business world is governed by cartels intent on driving prices as high as possible. It's only in the past year that CD prices have come down to US levels.. we used to pay up to three times more just five years ago!
So if the EU wants us to buy from EU stores, perhaps the EU should be a bit more like the US and open up its economy and not be so bureaucratic! If the US can have cheap gasoline and cheap CDs, I'm sure as hell the EU could too (since the EU is technically richer than the US and all).
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:2)
The only thing I know off-hand that is more expensive in europe because of reasons european is gas/oil.
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:2)
In US dollars, new DVDs cost $27-30 here, although there are a lot of 'Buy 2, get 1 free' offers. But in my experience, that's no worse than the US. I've got new DVDs from Canada for $15 or less.
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:2)
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't dispute your point; if US companies don't charge the tax, European companies are definitely at a disadvantage. It also would prevent the EU from raising taxes to, say 50%, because that would cause everyone to start buying from the US.
However, the proposal (as I've read about it) is very one-sided. It neglects to take any account the fact that the merchant has to:
1) Know the tax rates of every EU country, and keep up to date on them.
2) Send money to these countries at some point in time -- when, monthly? Yearly? Maybe not all on the same schedule. And for all I know the EU may specify that I have to pay in Euros, meaning that there could be conversion issues -- for example, if I collect $100 US in VAT, which is 150 Euros, and then by the time I pay it 150 Euros might cost me $150.
I haven't read the proposal, but this seems at least possible. Plus US banks aren't that friendly to those trying to send money out of the country, and frequently charge very high conversion rates.
Finally, it neglects to consider the fact that a government outside of the US is trying to govern US citizens. Now I realize that there is contact between the citizen and a EU citizen, but as a US citizen I have no ability to voice my opinion, through a vote, as to laws that are suddenly applying to me except to not sell to EU customers.
I'm troubled that the EU could "govern" me somehow just because I have some kind of relationship with an EU citizen. This is an important legal concept. Could this extend to other things, like, for example, running a web page that a EU citizen can view? Could I be pulled into German court because I have a page which glorifies Hitler, even though this is permissable in the US? (not that I'd want to make such a page, it's just an example). Could I be pulled into court because I cursed at someone on Usenet?
The law may be fair now, but it could definitely be changed. What if the EU decided to "tax" bytes transmitted to it via the internet? Although it's far-fetched, it's not outside the realm of possibility -- after all, who ever thought that they would try and force US citizens to collect their taxes?
Ralph Slate
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:2)
That's an Amazon.co.uk and a British problem not an european problem. (a consumer association research i saw some years ago showed that prices in GB were 1.2 times the european average - and this was before the strong pound and weak euro)
Just recently i changed from ordering my books with Amazon.co.uk into ordering them from a mainland online store (Proxis.nl) and it's about 2/3 of the price - the books are cheaper (english language books too), the sending costs are cheaper (as in zero) and i get the books as soon as each becomes available as oposed to have to wait for the whole package.
On the other hand it helps to know some mainland europe language.
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:2)
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:3, Insightful)
If there was less oil to go around more people, the price would go up automatically. The fact that the price of gasoline is so low in the US tells us that there's plenty of supply to meet the demand.. hence the price should remain low.
Environmentalists should not be protesting about gasoline. They should join the rest of us who are pissed off at the oil companies for buying out all of the people who come up with cheap/clean alternatives to the internal combustion engine. With our technology nowadays, there are better solutions, but we never hear of them.
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:2)
GNP per capita is more important to measure quality of life, but in measuring economic power, it's the raw figures that count.
Re:A lot of people here have missed the point (Score:2)
Population of EU: 379 million
Population of US: 278 million
US GDP: $9.983 trillion (~$36,200 per capita)
EU GDP: $8.5 trillion (~$22,427 per capita)
Difference: $1.483 trillion or 14% (~13,773 per capita or 38%)
There is a difference however between GDP vs GNP. GDP is gross product produced within national borders while GNP also includes net income received from abroad, but getting accurate GNP data is difficult given how well businesses can hide profits gained outside country borders.
You could also pull statistics for purchasing power parity (GDP adjusted for purchasing power within national borders), but it isn't a useful statistic when comparing countries international buying power since no one sells major goods adjusted for it internationally.
Opposite Goal (Score:2, Insightful)
In England they need more money for whatever, so they raise taxes. In the US they lower taxes to stimulate the economy and produce more overall wealth.
As a US based company with British tech we get to see both sides of the coin quite clearly, and as a money making machine we're very confident of which works best. Here we sit processing an awful lot of credit card transactions every second, mostly for US customers because it's easy. Do you think any court in this land will force us to spend heaps of money supporting foreign tax laws? Do you think we're going to release those records without such an order?
Even if we were forced to charge said tax, what would actually happen is it would be cheaper and more cost effective for us to not do business with those countries. End result: Those countries have less imports from the US. Their loss not ours. A good lesson in shooting yourself in the foot.
Same thing. Thinking of opening an office in London... Any idea how much company tax and fees they pay over there? Waaay to much. End result is we declined and the UK lost out on a company branch that produces loads in tax every month. Greed got them poor. Plain old stupid.
Robert
WebsiteBilling.com Inc.
* Typically, IMHO, etc. etc.
Outstanding!!! (Score:2)
Is the EU a closed society? (Score:2)
Is the public opinnion in the EU supporting this?
I strongly doubt it.
There's 2 things that this can show:
1 - EU is a closed society
2 - EU is feudal and non future-minded
When are we going to allow eachother to get out of poverty and live happily together?
This means the EU will start blocking IP addresses (Score:2, Interesting)
1. EU finds high traffic/high volume download for money web sites that doesn't charge VAT
2. They send an informational message explaining you have to collect the tax from EU users
3. Some time passes, web site still isn't collecting VAT
4. Harsher message is sent threatening to block IP addresses from all EU countries.
5. More time passes. They block the web site, no one in the EU can access it.
Now it will be a bit difficult to "block" the IP address, but given the few number of paths into any country and the small number of companies running them, I believe it will be possible for them to shut off most access to a non-compliant site. By doing this they create a situation that might convince someone to reconsider collecting the VAT tax.
Even if smart users can "hack" their way around it, the company will find it's EU sales reduced to near zero. Plus if done right it could cut off email and other access(the block would work both ways). It's a very big stick and it's well within their reach.
Re:This means the EU will start blocking IP addres (Score:2)
I dont' know if you are a citizen of the EU- well I am.
Where would you start the blockade? Which countries would agree? who would not? Even if we are all members of the EU, we are still COUNTRIES not states.
It takes AGES for the government of the EU to pass a law or something, because each and every country must first accept it, but most do not...
They are way too busy to get their own shit in check than blocking of sites which do not comply.
The next thing why blocking pages would be impossible is because there is no "top level IP organisiation" or whatever you might call them wihtin the EU. Every provider is on it's own.
So, why would Providers shut a path to a site down when other do not, thus creating an advance for them?
I think your vision might work in the states, but here in the EU the structure between the parts (states, countries whatever) is to loose to get into this. Well let's be happy about that
In addition to state tax (Score:2)
Oh gawd this is too funny! (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess what? EU tax laws are NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE UNITED STATES! Officials of American companies that don't have a foreign subsidiary that can be pressured (like Yahoo France was) will no doubt roll on the floor laughing hysterically, and then start counting the extra sales they'll pick up by underpricing the companies that do have to abide by EU stupidities.
The EU cannot enforce this outside the EU, and they know it--look at their FAQ! The "enforcement" section is all about voluntary compliance--which will no doubt be a lot like the "voluntary compliance" where customers are supposed to voluntarily add required state sales taxes to mail orders here in the U.S. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND PAYS TAXES VOLUNTARILY!
If I want to give my money away, I give it away to a church or charitable organization, not the eternally-corrupt, wasteful government.
In the U.S., mail order companies are only required to collect sales taxes in states in which they have an actual storefront presence because there are Constitutional problems with forcing a private business to act as a tax collector in another state. The same laws and issues will prohibit any legal requirements to collect taxes for a foreign authority such as the EU. If Lousiana can't force a California mail-order business to collect sales taxes from a Louisiana customer, what makes those idiots in the EU think they can?
Compared with Mail/Catalog Order Sales... (Score:2)
I truly do not see a substantial difference between these two methods of sales to provide for a different method of taxation: the provision of information for a product is provided to the customer in the same fashion:
1. With a catalog, the customer is sent and reads information concerning the product in his/her state, compared with the Internet, the customer receives and reads information concerning the product in his/her state; and
2. The transaction is conducted in the customer's state. With a catalog, the customer is typically at his/her state of residence and phones the retail operation to place an order --- with the Internet, the customer is typically at his/her state of residence and communicates with the retail operation, via a similar mode of transmission, to place an order.
If transactions via the Internet are to be taxed, it should be done fairly --- only taxation if the customer resides in a state where the retail operation has a physical operation: like mail-order sales.
--------------
Are EU companies going to collect US sales tax (Score:2)
Re:Method of Enforcement? (Score:3, Informative)
Within the EU there are similar VAT floors below which VAT is optional (there are cases that it makes sense to charge it when doing business to business work).
This also leads to such fun as people who run two companies, a VAT registered one that paints buildings for businesses (who can claim it back) and a non VAT one that does smaller amounts of business keeps below the VAT limit and paints houses for individuals (who cant)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2)
Now as you pointed out, the Customs service taxes goods coming into and out of a country. Let's say that you purchased a product online from a Brazilian site. They get taxed for it. Now the custom services adds additional tax on it. You are now double taxed on a product that should be taxed only once. How would you solve this logistical dilemma?
Re:Stupid (Score:2)
Just think, how much money are states losing from tax revenues due to online purchases?
Re:To HELP online sales? I think not... (Score:2)
Either way, that's 6 months, not 8. That mini-recession DID included a few quarters before and after of slow or stagnant growth (all recessions do) which made the apparent effects longer. You can review all these numbers at omb.gov.
Re:Let's take a lesson from Atlas Shrugged... (Score:2)
So, from my point of view as an European citizen that tax should be removed. (OTOH we should better do something against widespreasd government overspending and overtaxation in general, since for some strange reason there is not a single party here around promising (and fulfilling) substantial tax breaks. We need something like the US tax revolt in the ninties.