This sarcastic and snarky view is a bit shortsighted, isn’t it? Piracy worked because it was decentralized distribution. If the government goes after the gatekeepers in the same way they went after piracy they’re not just shutting down distribution - they’re taking the asset too. When someone takes over a coinbase or a binance they’re taking the coins.
Not your keys, not your coins. Your response now will, of course, be “well that’s why you rotate your coins out into cold storage” which is sort of like me saying “you just convert your lira to dollars at the end of the day when you’re done buying food and water.”
It's a good comparison but the value here is orders of magnitude off. A pirate might download a few hundreds of dollars' worth of music and movies. Crypto can be millions of dollars in a transaction. Government goes after the whales, the whole ecosystem dies.
How are you ever going to buy anything physical item ever other than "subscriptions" with crypto, if they ban it?
Afaik govts are having tough time with Online Piracy but not Shipping piracy.
The entire concept of "double taxation" is BS. All money is taxed multiple times as it moves around.
If I get paid a wage, my employer pays payroll tax, then I pay income tax. Then when I buy something with it, I pay sales tax. Then the company I bought it from pays payroll tax on it when they pay it out to an employee, then the employee pays income tax on it. Then they pay sales tax when they buy something with it, and so on.
The concept of double taxation is incredibly important. When you pay income and payroll taxes on your wages, its important to understand what your real tax rate is, and its a lot higher than either individually.
So what's the real tax rate in investments in the U.S? Well it's the corporate tax rate. Plus the investors capital gains or dividend tax rate. Plus the state corporate income tax rate. And the investors state income tax rate.
All these layers of taxation means it's almost impossible for taxes on profits to be less than 40% for an investor, and can reach 60%.
And sales tax isn't part of the double taxation layer, because it's voluntary. You could have spent your net earnings on things that don't have a sales tax, or saved it. And sales tax applies equally to the investor receiving a dividend.
You have a point in that money does get taxed multiple times as it moves around. But I don’t believe that makes the term “double taxation” BS. It’s a useful term in a world where there are two structures for business entities (a) the “double taxation” corporate structure where lower corporate taxes allow increased investment at the expense of less efficient shareholder distributions or (b) the “single taxation” structure of partnership-type entities where earnings are only taxed once, but at the higher rate.
I don’t use the term “double taxation” to imply corporations are necessarily a worse structure compared to partnerships; that depends on context. But it’s a useful descriptive term.
Why not just tax any sale of a stock or a divident payout in the country of the company, - not the country of owner of said stock? These operations have to go through country of company anyway...
They don’t. Suppose I incorporate a company in Grand Bahama “Shell” and fund it with $10,000. The company turns around and buys $10,000 worth of Apple stock. A year later, Apple has doubled and I sell my company Shell to my friend John. If John and I are both non-Americans then the US taxing authority will never hear about this transfer or be able to tax the capital gain.
So you and your friend John are foreigners investing foreign capital in the U.S. company Apple. Why do we want to use the tax system to discourage this?
To realize that gain you actually need to sell the Apple stock. It would be perfectly possible (as I am proposing) and viable to make that transaction be forced to go through US. You could still sell the "Shell" to someone without US knowing about it, but once you actually would want to do something with that gained money - you would need to sell the underlying stock and deal with IRS.
It might be the case, like with quantum mechanics, that NN theory is just fundamentally weird (e.g. because the space is so multidimensional), and it's hard for us to understand it no matter how long we study it.
Is that calculation really correct? Does it count tax for all the employees? Does it count all specialized tax for things like gas or VAT, for all the things Netflix buys in their operation? What about all the media that Netflix buys and produces? What about all the taxes levied there on salaries and other activities? The article also talks about "income" and not "revenue"...
The numbers don't make sense to me. Their annual report [0] says pre-tax income of $2 billion, not $2.8 billion (p41). Even if you disallow deducting interest expense and use operating income, that's still only $2.6 billion. Meanwhile, they're paying $400 million in taxes (p43). That looks a lot more like 20% to me than 1%. What am I missing?
They are probably referring to the fact that 1/2 the payroll tax is paid by the employer. The employee does not pay this tax, and it is directly paid by the employer for every employee.
Well it is tax money that is sent to the government and that is taken from the total amount of money that the company receives for the products it provides. If we are talking about some moral side of the issue (as the articles tries to, if I'm not mistaken), then why wouldn't we count it?
I'm not saying that the company shouldn't pay a direct tax on their profit, but that I want to know the real number counting everything. Focusing on some fraction of that number can be misleading, especially when the editors try to distill it into a short title, with possible agendas no less.
That is true that in some countries the employee income is taxed at source, but it doesn't mean that the tax is not paid by the employee just because the company sends it on his or hers behalf.
It is happening this way because governments don't trust people that they would send that money each month.
What employees pay should be a completely separated equation, as this is what employee makes with their own hard work, not the corporation.
Plenty? In what way? There seems to be one company that makes a keyboard phone with outdated CPUs and other hardware, to make ends meet and be able to produce such a phone economically.
