Czech Republic proposes the highest digital tax rate in Europe

"Tech giants" of the past and present like IBM, AT&T, Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, Uber, and Amazon are all widely disliked and criticized.

Aside from that there are plenty of European tech companies (ASML, Logitech, Skype, Spotify, just to name a few) the attitudes in Europe tend to be different. Attend one of the Silicon Valley conferences where it's all "we're going to change world!" vs. the German CCC where it's "we're not sure if society as a whole benefits from this technology".

There are probably other reasons too. Silicon valley and that Chinese city I forgot the name of are powerful "tech hubs" where workers, innovators, and investors meet. Europe lacks such a powerful "hub". I suspect the most important reason for this is that "Europe" isn't a single country but dozens of countries. Even in the EU – where you can legally move to another country at a whim – it's not so easy, as you may not speak the language.

This is why the UK probably has more EU immigrants than many other countries, since most people speak some English.

And sure, perhaps taxes can be a factor? I'm unsure of it, and I've never seen it proven, but I am willing to be convinced. Either way, it's certainly a lot more complex than "taxes kill innovation".

This sounds like a bad idea, so I had a look at the article to see what "innovation" was being taxed.

Innovation is a "new idea, creative thoughts, new imaginations in form of device or method". (source: merriam-webster.com)

Plugging in our definition of innovation, the question becomes:

What is the new idea, creative thoughts, new imaghinations in form of device or method that trigger this new tax in Europe?

First the article says the UK gov't wants to tax "companies whose business model requires the active participation of U.K. users in creating content, being targeted with advertising or linked by intermediary platforms."

Is collecting user content and serving ads "innovation"? That is what triggers the tax.

What if we just collected user content, maybe charged a fee? No ads. Do we get taxed?

Second, it says the Czech gov't wants to tax companies with "advertising and personal data sales as the primary base" as well as "sharing economy platforms". The article says the tax "prioritizes targeted ads".

Is selling advertising and personal data "innovation"?

What if some Czech programmer make an Uber or AirBnB style app but do not sell advertising or data? Do they get taxed?

Third, it says the French gov't wants to tax "platforms that put users in touch with each other for a fee".

Is putting users in touch with each other for a fee "innovation"? Does that make ad-supported companies that do this exempt?

What if a company sells native software that puts users in touch with other, peer-to-peer. Is that a "platform"? If not, do they get taxed?

What is their definition of "platform"? Under the Wikipedia definition, the internet itself is a "platform".

As always, the devil is in the details. We need to see the text of these tax laws.

Finally, the article discusses the merits of the "[t]axing advertising that is based on personal data".

Is advertising based on personal data "innovation"? What loss would we, the majority, suffer if this particular innovation were taxed?

Is it possible to have "innovation" that does not involve advertising based on personal data? Of course. That is the kind of innovation I prefer. I am using some to write this comment.

We will not lose the benefits of personal computer-based innovations simply because we take away the financial incentive to collect personal data and serve ads. That is not the raison d'etre for the type of innovation we seek to encourage. It is the advances in hardware and networking.

Taking otherwise available rentals off the full-time rental market and moving the "up" the economic return ladder to AirBnB rentals makes the housing situation tighter for residents and would-be residents.

(I'm a happy user of AirBnB platform and am "OK" with the conversion of real estate to its highest and best use, but I understand the opposition argument and think it has some merit.)

talk to any of the uber drivers where I work, so take it as you will, and many will tell you of passengers who use uber/lyft because the drivers are friendlier, arrive on time, and tend to drive nicer cars. the arrive on time and don't just drive off because you need to go where the taxi won't is very important. and it is people of all income levels using them

tldr: residential population in the more attractive parts of town have decreased as much as 45% in the last 12 years. Activists staged protests of illegal Airbnb's by renting them, occupying them, and refusing to leave, all while filming their interactions.

0: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/29/the-airbnb-inv...

While these regulatory actions are surprising to some, if you’re into history it’s no surprise it’s happening again, but to tech instead of oil.

This happens because tech companies are well-equipped to siphon user data at massive scale and have been given the luxury of embedding these services into our daily lives without sufficiently educating the public around their business models. Ultimately, the public has very little control over what these companies do with this data, so there's a perverse mismatch of incentives here.

Tech companies are incentivized to collect user data and not explain how it's used. Tech companies are incentivized to pay lobbyists to discourage the government from placing a market value on data. The public doesn't have that kind of lobbying influence.

I think the point is to start forcing companies into thinking sensitive user data is a liability that is taxed or worse if they do anything "nefarious" with that data (where nefarious could be whatever we think to put in that law).

So it's like asking for Coca-cola to "have competition" (which generally just creates more sugar soda brands) vs taxing sugar.

There's no scenario where Germany doesn't get its export machine hammered with tariffs if the EU broadly goes too far with this. It will drag the EU economy below water into a perma recession (which it has almost been in already since 2007, all the major economies of Europe have seen near zero net GDP expansion for over a decade). Europe is extraordinarily weak, with Brexit and France, as well as the continued residual mess in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal from the great recession. Germany is the only thing propping up the EU economic house of cards. And that's what the US will target to break the back of the EU. If I were the US, I'd start with finishing off the collapse of Deutsche Bank (down to a $16b market cap now) and move to decimate their auto industry (conspire with China as it makes sense, we can carve the world in half between superpowers; they'd love to take the place of some of Germany's advanced industry and move up the ladder of development further). Once it's war, it's war. Or you know, the EU could be smart, turn back and stop the targeted assault on the US economy.

If it gets really feisty, just look the other way, Russia will begin rebuilding its empire by consuming parts of Eastern Europe (which it's always desperate to do). That will destabilize an already weakened EU. These countries are either allies of the US, or not. If they are, they will stop attacking the US economy. If they're not, I don't see why the US should be protecting them from Russia with its military power. And there's absolutely nothing the EU can do to stop Russia from taking what it wants in Eastern Europe.

In all honesty, they do have monopolies and it seems that the same type of anti-trust enforcement that was used to help Apple/Google in the browser war against Microsoft just isn't there anymore. Now Google/FB really do have a monopoly on user data.

I think properly regulating instead of just taxing is more useful.