French Government Thinks Amazon Is Too Customer Friendly

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

But this...did you read this? I could kill someone, but I haven't broken the law until some official body says I did?!

Conversely, I could say you beat your wife and kids. Should people believe it without proof? That in essence what you and tompe are doing with Amazon.

[MattW]

Originally Posted by PatNY

So at least as pertains to the main issues in this thread -- Amazon in Europe -- you are dead wrong on your insistence they are the ones who created the rules.

And even if you want to consider Amazon only in the context of the U.S., it is a relatively new company. Its success and lobbying clout is recent, so any influence it had on current domestic laws pertaining to the taxation of U.S. corporations is probably negligible or minor. Those laws existed before Amazon was born.

--Pat

"Dead wrong" is a bit harsh. As you would have seen had you read my posts, I replied to something very specific HarryT had said, namely that we can't possibly blame Amazon for doing what every taxpayer does -- minimizing taxes.

By that point, the discussion had moved away from France into much more general territory. I believe that becomes abundantly clear, when read in context. And even so, when I referenced France, I tried make exactly your point: that the French government has chosen this clumsy way to deal with a situation that is basically outside their control (EU tax laws).

And these (the EU laws) do get shaped by the likes of Amazon, the same as in the US.

Matt

[MattW]

Originally Posted by aceflor

It is scary to read some completely uninformed posts in this thread, more often than not from members living in the EU, who most probably voted at one time or another for texts and resolutions they have obviously no clue about.

It's quite scary and sad to read some condescending remark by someone who so obviously believes he's smarter than the people he is mocking and still does not frame a single coherent argument. How someone could write a post with zero content and manage to look down on "some people" is beyond me.

Such a person possibly wouldn't recognise irony if it hit him over the head with a hammer

Matt

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Conversely, I could say you beat your wife and kids. Should people believe it without proof? That in essence what you and tompe are doing with Amazon.

What?!

All I said ... or tried to point out ... is that just because an "official body" hasn't declared a thing to be so, doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

I was speaking in general terms. As I said in my post, I actually suspect that Amazon is within the law - taking advantage of every loophole they can get, just like everyone else does. I believe this is pretty much what Harry T has been saying all along, as well.

[Ansileran]

Wow, this really ended up as a political conversation and went way out of topic ^^

To the initial problem of preventing Amazon from shipping books without costs, well, it depends on how you consider those "savings": hidden discount on the price of book or a reduction of the profit margin of the company on the sale. Both option are valid and Amazon isn't the only company that would be impacted. It's just another (misguided?) attempt at protecting small, independent bookstores that can't afford to offer free shipping (how many books they actually ship is another question).

The question of VAT on ebooks in France and Luxembourg is another matter entirely. The problem comes from the definition of an ebook. France considers ebook to be books just as pbooks (unless I'm mistaken). As such, they should be taxed the same as pbooks. Europe considers that books are an entirely different product and isn't a "good" nor a "service". As such, it should be fully taxed.

I think the full VAT is the same in all European countries, it's only locally sold goods and services that can benefit from a reduced VAT. As ebooks could be sold across borders, ebooks retailers press for a (higher) harmonized VAT or we would all start to buy our ebooks in Luxembourg ^^. A solution would be for retailers to not include VAT in the sale and have individuals pay it themselves... Not sure if that would work well.

Whether having a different VAT on pbooks and ebooks makes sense should probably be left for another topic.

[Ansileran]

What people should remember before starting flinging general accusations around is that there are big differences in mentality and in functionment between the EU and the US. I admit to having a somewhat limited understanding of the US, so just a few things:

-> EU isn't a federal country, it's an alliance of countries (in its actual state)

-> EU is in its infancy compared to other federal countries and most of its members are centralized states with little or no experience of federalism

-> EU has no common language or culture to rely upon.

-> There is no European identity. Things are changing but here is a very simple test: as a US citizen, you'd say "I'm an American" when introducing yourself in a foreign country and then maybe "I'm Texan". I would say "I'm French", never "European". Just a few decades ago, we were killing each others and 30 years ago we were still split in two by the Cold War...

There are many issues that need to be dealt with, loopholes in tax laws are only one of them. With the current state of the EU, such matters are extremely complex...

[aceflor]

Originally Posted by MattW

It's quite scary and sad to read some condescending remark by someone who so obviously believes he's smarter than the people he is mocking and still does not frame a single coherent argument. How someone could write a post with zero content and manage to look down on "some people" is beyond me.

Such a person possibly wouldn't recognise irony if it hit him over the head with a hammer

Matt

Oh, it would, it would...

I don't have to, and I don't want to frame a single coherent argument because the thread is spiraling in a discussion that has nothing to do with the beginning of it. But generally speaking some views here are biased, based on wrong assumptions, with either not much knowledge of the EU Treaties or a very personal interpretation of them. I discuss this daily at length, so no, I won't give you arguments, the texts as such are clear, even if not to everyone's taste.

Back to the original topic, and that will be my last post on this thread :

What p... Ms Filipetti off anyway is not so much the VAT problem, btw on pbooks much more than on ebooks, as the problem of direct company taxation, with Amazon doing much of its turnover in France but paying its taxes in Luxemburg under much friendlier conditions than in France.
Here an excellent explanation (in french, sorry for that) http://www.bfmtv.com/economie/exclus...ce-381470.html. BTW, the discussion is not new...


And it is the fact that Amazon is "inattaquable" (sorry, I do not have the english word for this), on the VAT but also on the direct taxation that annoys Ms Filipetti so much, and makes her retaliate on the free delivery. Although the ones behind all this are Moscovici, Minstre de l'Economie et des Finances, and Cazeneuve, Ministre du Budget.

Funny enough: France is not the only country annoyed with Amazon tax strategy, but do you hear Germany's Culture Minister making such noise?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Until and unless some official body says they have broken the law, then they haven't.

But that is stupid. According to your argument if you murder somebody in a very illegal way you have bot broken the law unless a court convict you.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by aceflor

Funny enough: France is not the only country annoyed with Amazon tax strategy, but do you hear Germany's Culture Minister making such noise?

You can't. There is no such thing as a Minister of Culture in Germany.

[aceflor]

Originally Posted by Billi

You can't. There is no such thing as a Minister of Culture in Germany.

Was macht Bernd Neumann dann ? "Staatsminister für Kultur und Medien" ist sein Titel...

[Billi]

Das ist aber kein "echter" Minister wie beispielsweise der Innen- oder Aussen- oder Finanzminister.
Wenn ich darf, würde ich Dich auf die entsprechenden wikipedia-Seiten verweisen:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsm...r_(Deutschland)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauftr...tur_und_Medien

In general, today's government in Germany is extremely company-friendly and unless there is some other (bigger) company that has a struggle with Amazon there won't be any interference by the government. It is "the ordinary people" that pay taxes here mostly (and not only income tax but also a high VAT, high energy taxes ... that - big - companies don't pay at all.)

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is stupid. According to your argument if you murder somebody in a very illegal way you have bot broken the law unless a court convict you.

Pretty much.


At least in countries where you are innocent until *proven* guilty.
Until then you are merely *accused* but not convicted.

Calling somebody a murderer (or tax evader) without actual proof of conviction is slander and actionable in many countries. Also, some countries have specific laws for product slander to deal with people who spread *negative* lies about products or companies. (Positive lies are handled separately, under avertising fraud laws.)

Of course, there are still places like the old soviet union where anybody accused of anything was presumed guilty and had to prove their innocence. Absent any evidence pro or con, they would be jailed.
And, yes, that included accusations of slander (against the state).
Although those more often than not involved sending the accused to mental institutions; under the assumption that anybody who woud dare speak up would have to be mentally ill and divorced from reality.

There at two distinct mindsets at work: one style of regimes starts out from
the premise that *everything* is legal until *proven* to be a violation of the common good and a specific law is passed. The second style of regime starts out from the premise that everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed by law.

As always, in these issues, it really all goes back to Salamis, and the question of whether people belong to the state or the state belongs to the people.

Here:
http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=...Aw&redir_esc=y

Of course, all politicians, regardless off regime, believe people only exist to pay taxes. So their solution to everything that annoys them is usually a new tax, direct or indirect.

What varies from country to country is the citizen's attitudes towards geting fleeced.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is stupid. According to your argument if you murder somebody in a very illegal way you have bot broken the law unless a court convict you.

No. I did not say that. Apparently you don't understand what I have been writing. If you don't understand, ask me to clarify. I would rather you do that than mangle my position. You misunderstood or completely missed my previous reply to FizzyWater regarding this topic (#120). I'll repeat what I said:

Killing someone is rarely a gray area. When it is a gray area -- such as in instances of self defense -- then it isn't a crime until some official body (a jury, for example) says it is.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by MattW

By that point, the discussion had moved away from France into much more general territory. I believe that becomes abundantly clear, when read in context. And even so, when I referenced France, I tried make exactly your point: that the French government has chosen this clumsy way to deal with a situation that is basically outside their control (EU tax laws).

And these (the EU laws) do get shaped by the likes of Amazon, the same as in the US.

Matt

So then you back off this previous statement of yours: "Amazon isn't merely playing the cards it's been dealt, it stacked the deck, dealt the cards and now claims to be "merely playing by the rules""? Okay, then. Fair enough.

--Pat

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Pretty much.


At least in countries where you are innocent until *proven* guilty.
Until then you are merely *accused* but not convicted.

Yes, and if a court in the future will convict you then you have now committed an illegal act. The act is not legal until the conviction.

That you should treat people like they are not convicted is a totally different question. One name of the principle is "presumption of innocence". Note that the principle is not called "you are innocent".