Hacker News Reader

Comment by CraigJPerry | Hacker News Reader

I don’t think we should get to tell Apple what the % is, they’re a private company.

However, i am ok with adjusting the amount we charge them for use of public services - their reliance on the rule of law, that we’re not at war etc. etc. becomes more valuable in absolute terms to a company, the more payments it accepts within a jurisdiction.

I think it’s totally fair to invoice for govt services based on the value of them to the company.

To be clear this would not be like taxes on profits, i’m proposing an invoice against receipts.

View on HN

That would introduce a level of red-tape that would make any bureaucrat faint. Can you imagine billing any company for the cost of government services directly? Billing for the “rule-of-law”? That would be a completely unworkable system.

Plus, if you did this, what would stop the company from increasing their percentage in order to pay for your new taxes?

But what you’re describing is the logic behind a progressive income tax. The more money you make — the more important the system (rule of law, security, etc) becomes to you, so the more you should pay. At least, that’s the theory...

>> That would introduce a level of red-tape

    Jurisdiction X hereby decrees the tariffs for tax year 20/21 as:

    Receipts not more than $X = tariff of $Y
    Receip...

?

There is no market force to provide for proper price discovery of those services. It's only fair to regulate it if Apple is unwilling to subject that business to competition.

Jurisdictions become participants in a market for access to their buyers.

I dont agree with your condition of fairness but i woukd point out Apple has already established vehement unwillingness to compete on app stores anyway.

Isn’t that why sales taxes exist?

No, that’s paid by the consumer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com