EU mad at US for a change

[John Prezioso]

Article: "EU Wants Shared Control of Internet"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_on_...nternet_control

I figured I would post this before Nomad this time.

The key point as far as I'm concerned:

"A stalemate over who should serve as the principal traffic cops for Internet routing and addressing could derail the summit, which aims to ensure a fair sharing of the Internet for the benefit of the whole world.

At issue is who would have ultimate authority over the Internet's master directories, which tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic.

That role has historically gone to the United States, which created the Internet as a Pentagon project and funded much of its early development."

[John Prezioso]

Well, if you're not mad, that's good enough for me!

I can only say that I believe if Europe had invented the internet, the U.S. would do one of two things:

1) Use it as it existed with EU control

2) Make their own and regulate as they wish.

Either way, it's no skin off my nose. But I can't for the life of me understand why the U.S. should give up control of something they created if they don't want to.

[Guest]

The internet root servers are run by a PRIVATE company, just as it should be, the US commerce department has veto power, but a private company runs it.

If a country wants it's own suffix, all it has to do is request it, just as .UK, just as .ca, etc.

The ONLY reason that it is such a big deal, is because if the UN is able to control it, or the EU for that matter, they will be able to TAX it, or control who or what gets domain names, as long as they pay the right price.

The EU can create whatever root servers that they want, and if they screw with the REAL internet, then they need to be ISOLATED from the real internet.

It'll be sad, but, they will be able to tax the users of THEIR internet, while the rest of us on the REAL internet won't be.

[Soback]

The EU has what is called a VAT or Value added tax. They tax DOWNLOADS that update programs. They tax GPS updates for one. How would you like to pay for patches to a game you purchased because it adds value to it? How would you like to pay the VAT tax for windows updates?

The EU wants their finger in the WORLD NET and wants the ability to control traffic flow, because they want to tax all flow of traffic. Which means BROWSING would be taxed too.

They just NEED more money because their socialist system is running at a defficit. Bussinesses are already being taxed pretty much to the limit. Personal taxes are insanely high. So they need new ways to tax anything they can. Who knows, in a decade they might tax you on the ammount of kids you have, and the ammount of breaths you take. Air is a worlds resource too.

And here's a pre-existing thread. If anyone missed the discussion there. It's a good read. Now we can discuss the politics of socialism as it relates to internet, and where it leads.

http://www.3000ad.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?u...c;f=36;t=000463

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Nobody ever wanted the US to give up control of the net on US soil. What is in question is that Bush decided not to abandon Commerce's veto power on ICANN decisions, a complete u-turn on what was already decided.

The question is why the main root servers shall remain under unique US juridiction when the whole world is nowadays dependent of the net. It's not only a question of management of single national extensions, but the ability to link the whole castle of cards togheter.

Concerning internet taxation, at my knowledge the only EU tax concerns online business sales. I would also say that online business taxation was also debated in the US if I am not mistaken, and currently a tax exemption is active, what in a certain sense is not fair given that online retail usually bears less costs than conventional retail models.

---

Ahh, yes, the fairness doctrine, where have I heard that before.

The reason that they do not tax the internet in the United States, is because they want internet Commerce to GROW....

SO, QED, they expect that if they tax it, they will RESTRAIN that growth. Economics 101, at least on 1 thing the congress of the US gets it, too bad they get blind to that fact when it comes time to tax everything else....

[Soback]

Here's a little info about internet downloads taxation:

http://old.law.columbia.edu/CPC/archive/ta...T-nonsense.html

Here's more:

http://news.com.com/2008-1082-800866.html?legacy=cnet

"The European Union is moving toward requiring companies located outside of its borders, especially those in the United States, to collect taxes on digital downloads. What do you think about that? Is that something that the U.S. government should try to block?

This is very draconian. It is tamping down commerce. It raises the specter of Internet sellers across the rest of the world being discriminated against and not having the opportunity to take advantage of their own national philosophy and system of government. And I certainly hope that the European Union doesn't go that way.

In order to even achieve it, you would have to try to track down people as to what their location is, what their private business is in order to force people beyond their jurisdictions to collect and remit taxes. And that's bad policy. "

---Hmmm. interesting. THEY WOULD HAVE TO TRACK DOWN PEOPLE AS TO WHAT THEIR LOCATION IS, TO FORCE PEOPLE BEYOND THEIR JURISDICTIONS TO COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES....ect... what easier way to do it, than to CONTROL THE TRAFFIC, and have possesions of the servers.

Here's something interesting:

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/jan/1105466.htm

""It would be nothing less than a hidden tax on Internet users who will be obliged to pay for the costs of government snooping," said Malcolm Hutty, regulation officer with LINX.

The European Council of Ministers is currently considering legislation which would force ISPs to collect and retain a wide variety of data about the traffic which they handle. It is intended that this data would be made available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies."

"The cost implications are huge. As we do not know what data we might be collecting, it is impossible to estimate what the costs will actually be. The sky is the limit.

"At the end of the day, the only source of money to finance this will be Internet users. ISPs will have to put up charges in order to finance data collection and retention for the government."

---- I wonder why they need to collect data on traffic flow. Maybe to CALCULATE HOW MUCH POSSIBLE TAX REVENUES CAN BE COLLECTED.

Interesting as to when the costs become higher and higher, what other way to offset them, then to institute TRAFFIC FLOW TAXES.

Here's an article from 1998 WHERE EUROPEANS BLATANTLY LIE SAYING:

"The Commission's future role in the regulation of the Internet will be to regulate less, de Bruine explained. Instead, it will attempt to provide a vision, create conditions in which new technologies can flourish and liberalize the infrastructures involved in disseminating Internet content. "

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9807/24/euronet.idg/

---So, I guess NOW in 2005, the TAX on the internet downloads is creating a condition in which new technologies can flourish, on ONE point they are right, they sure did liberalize the infrastructures involved in disseminating Internet content. It means THEY STARTED TAXING IT, that's the liberal way. ROFL

Here's another great article:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007798.html

"The UN rears its ugly head again as an international political spat is brewing over whether the United Nations will seize control of the heart of the Internet. By ugly I mean those members of the UN whose rule at home has nothing to recommend them such as Syria, China or Ghana. They claim that the U.S. government has undue influence over how things run online. Now they want to be the ones in charge.

One of the things at issue is who decides key questions like adding new top-level domains, assigning chunks of numeric Internet addresses, and operating the root servers that keep the Net humming.

But this is the bit that opens the knife in my pocket.

Other suggested responsibilities for this new organization include Internet surveillance, "consumer protection," and perhaps even the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access."

I could go on, and on.

So Nomad. Want more?

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment...erugy090303.asp

"It's not hard to imagine why the EU wants this plan. Thanks to the Internet, highly taxed Europeans can purchase tax-free goods from non-EU nations. With the cost of shipping in constant decline, buying goods from non-EU online sellers is often a no-brainer for bargain-hunters. The number of EU customers buying from non-EU companies over the Internet has increased dramatically."

"The EU hopes to steal the golden eggs without killing the goose. The size of the market is now big enough that the new tax probably won't kill it completely and the EU can expect a load of money to enter its coffers at the expense of non-EU companies. "

"And this is where the EU's scheme becomes clear. It's all about creating more sources of revenue for the EU by allowing governments to tax income earned outside of their national borders. If the EU's pro-tax forces manage to enforce this new scheme, the French government would be able to collect taxes from the Washington-based Amazon.com. The company being taxed, of course, has no voice in the tax-and-spending decisions made by the French government. Nor does it benefit from the public services France provides with those tax dollars."

"Countries, as sovereign entities, should have control over their tax policy. Companies with no physical presence in Europe should not be forced to collect taxes for the European Union. If this plan goes through, European taxpayers will lose, big time, and freedom and economic growth will be permanently damaged."

---THIS one is GREAT:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1124384/posts

"The members of the United Nations, primarily anti-American in ideology and deed, are not.

So when United Nations leader Kofi Annan announces publicly a ÔÇ£common interestÔÇØ in providing Internet access to ÔÇ£all the worldÔÇÖs people,ÔÇØ suspicion should be the prevailing feeling among all those who claim reverence for the right of the individual and for free market dogma. This is not an idle pronouncement, an off-the-cuff expression of a personal dream or childlike desire for all in the world to have equal rights and access to this technology.

Rather, AnnanÔÇÖs formal statements come on the tail end of a UN meeting on ÔÇ£telecommunicationsÔÇØ regulation that was planned in December 2003, the same month the global body solidified its Declaration of Principles and its Plan of Action for actually achieving control of the Internet.

"

-------READ THIS QUOTE-------

"So what does this mean to you, an American citizen with constitutionally guaranteed individual rights, freedoms, privacies and free-market abilities? Well, thereÔÇÖs that niggling ÔÇ£equality for allÔÇØ philosophy again, the socialists' dream of achieving absolute uniformity among those of dissimilar abilities and resources that runs completely contrary to our constitutional system of capitalism.

This is how the plot for global control will unfold. In its Plan of Action, the United Nations lists ten goals, most aimed at linking various Internet users and records to one, single, master global system. Planned connections include ÔÇ£villages, universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools, scientific and research centers, public libraries, cultural centers, museums, post offices and archives, health centers and hospitals (and) all local and central government departments.ÔÇØ

Also planned is adapting ÔÇ£all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the Information Society,ÔÇØ ensuring world-wide access to television and radio and encouraging ÔÇ£conditions in order to facilitate the presence and use of all world languages on the Internet.ÔÇØ

This is UN language; in simpler terms, the principles and actions outline the goals and means for taking charge of the Internet at the international level. By their own statements, UN members want access to medical records. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being taught in the schools, from elementary grades through college. They want to keep abreast of all scientific advancements. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being mailed, whatÔÇÖs being exhibited in museums and whatÔÇÖs being discussed in town hall meetings.

They plan to achieve these objectives by 2015.

Once realized, our free-market system will surely crumble. Not only does the United Nations call for sharing technology with disadvantaged and possibly even hostile states, but this body will also be in position to impose whatever access and usage fees deemed necessary for the good of all, regulate business, and oversee all content placed on the Internet for public access.

[ 10-01-2005, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Soback]

This is so good, I want to make sure everyone GETS THIS

"By their own statements, UN members want access to medical records. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being taught in the schools, from elementary grades through college. They want to keep abreast of all scientific advancements. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being mailed, whatÔÇÖs being exhibited in museums and whatÔÇÖs being discussed in town hall meetings.

They plan to achieve these objectives by 2015.

Once realized, our free-market system will surely crumble. Not only does the United Nations call for sharing technology with disadvantaged and possibly even HOSTILE states, but this body will also be in position to impose whatever ACCESS and USAGE FEES deemed necessary for the GOOD OF ALL (ROFL), regulate business, and OVERSEE all content placed on the Internet for PUBLIC (Something EU doesn't seem to understand, or maybe they understand it a little too well, their defenition of public = free loot) access."

[Soback]

The EU has set a presidence. When it lied back in 1998, saying that the reason it wanted more say, is to make internet flourish. Then, it slapped a TAX on DOWNLOADS.

Now, it's saying, it wants yet more control. For what other reason, than mentioned in my posts above?

1. EU lied before.

2. It set a presidence by taxing internet goods.

3. It went farther, and started taxing DOWNLOADS. Updates for crying out loud.

NOW, tell me. Do you think EU will stop here? That EU just wants more control for... and....giggles? Or do you think that the reason they are collecting all the traffic flow data, and want more control, because they want to tax that traffic flow, and then farther down the line, to screen that information, collecting and storing data on pretty much everything.

"By their own statements, UN members want access to medical records. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being taught in the schools, from elementary grades through college. They want to keep abreast of all scientific advancements. They want to know whatÔÇÖs being mailed, whatÔÇÖs being exhibited in museums and whatÔÇÖs being discussed in town hall meetings."

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

You are going to great lengths, picking up bits where you can, conveniently taking them out of context, mixing many subjects who have nothing in common going from factually unsupported opinions, supposed anti-american conspiracies up to the access to medical records, you don't follow any structure, and finally refer to sources like freerepublic or nationalreview (exquisite examples of apolitical and neutral sources btw).

Well, my answer is simple:

Half your sources are obsolete, because these were mainly commentaries emitted in 2002 about EU taxation projects, projects who are now legally enforced as law with a scope and a form who doesen't leave any space to hypotheses.

It never crossed your mind that what counts is not what people think but the actual legislation ? Taxed are online transactions. If I buy a game online outside the EU and I donwload it, it's not the download that is taxed as such but the transaction, because I am importing a good. Is this so difficult to understand ?

---

1. Show me WHER HAVE I TAKEN ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT? Back up your statement when you make an ACUSATION.

2. The reason I posted articles FROM 1998 To 2003, is to show a TREND. To show how EU LIED when it said it wanted lax control. Then in 2002 it said it wanted to TAX downloads. And those downloads are not just transaction taxes. I showed you a GARMING GPS website. WHERE IN PLAIN TEXT, THEY SAY THAT ANY EUROPEAN DOWNLOADING AN UPDATE (A SOFTWARE UPDATE), THEY HAVE TO PAY A TAX. What's wrong with you? You can't understand, that it's A SOFTWARE UPDATE?

Now again, they are saying (like in 1998), that there's NOTHING to worry about. Everything will be fine. While trying to worm their way through for more control. To what END?

So, LIKE I SAID. When you say:

POSTED BY NOMAD - "Half your sources are obsolete, because these were mainly commentaries emitted in 2002 about EU taxation projects, projects who are now legally enforced as law with a scope and a form who doesen't leave any space to hypotheses. "

THATS PRECISELLY my point. It was hypothised before the 2002, that EU will tax downloads and internet usage, and that's why they wanted more control. THEIR HYPOTHESIS CAME TRUE. EU was LYING, saying it just wanted to regulate a little, to make internet flourish. AND NOW, THOSE TAXATION PROJECTS ARE LEGALLY ENFORCED, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

DRAW A paralel (something you can't do maybe?). Now, EU wants YET MORE control. People are saying, if they get it, there will be more regulation, more taxes, and invasion of privace. You telling me it won't happen? Just like it didn't happen in 2002? LIAR.

Posted by Nomad:

"Second, would you once in your life follow actual news instead of spending your time by consulting only material who suits your opinions, you would know that last week, the european parliament has rejected the project to massively record internet's users online activity. "

---They saw the BILL, and how prohibitevly EXPENSIVE it will be. That's WHY they backed down for now, AND, That's WHY they want control. Because if they did those studies RIGHT NOW, the costs would be incurred by European ISP users. If they get CONTROL of the traffic flow. They will SPREAD THE COSTS among ALL the ISP providers using THEIR EUROPEAN SERVERS. Too complicated? Because I think even a layman can understand what this means.

Stop blowing smoke in peoples faces Nomad.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Consult the taxation law, and critizice the law, not 3 years old gossip...

Again, alone in your corner, you emit your own personal assumptions without consulting any data related to the subject you are disgressing on.

---

Do you fail to read what I am saying on purpose?

I will say it again. Not for your sake, but for the sake of whomever will end up reading this thread. So that they can see that you are blatantly ignoring the FACTS, and the trends that took place between 1998 and today, that I have posted above in my posts, again, and again.

1. In 1998 EU wanted more conrol over the internet. EU said (LIED) it WOULD NOT interfere, regulate, or impede the progress in any way. They said that on the contrary, they wanted to make it easier, to have internet flourish.

2. People, were saying, that if EU will be given more say over internet regulations, they will use it for their ever increasing taxes. They are going to over regulate it, to beurocratically impede progress, and impose fees on it's use.

3. In 2002, IT HAPPENED.

4. EU has imposed what is called a VAT tax. They tax ANY kind of software that is downloaded over the internet. A GREAT example of it being something as simple as an update to a GPS database, a PATCH.

5. EU now, is DEMANDING, even more control, it's own servers, ect....

6. People are saying, EU will impose a tax on even something as simple as traffic flow through their servers (why not, they are already taxing software patches from US companies that are downloaded in Europe), EU will collect private information, and whenever there's control over something by the government, there's huge corruption, privacy violations, abuse, taxation...ect..

7. EU has set a presidence for such steps.

8. You are ignoring ALL THESE FACTS, even by YOUR OWN ADMISSION,

Posted by Nomad: "Half your sources are obsolete, because these were mainly commentaries emitted in 2002 about EU taxation projects, projects who are now legally enforced as law with a scope and a form who doesen't leave any space to hypotheses. "

---THOSE "HYPOTHESIS" WHEN PEOPLE WERE SAYING EU WILL ABUSE THE POWER IF GIVEN CONTROL HAVE CAME TRUE, YOU YOURSELF ARE SAYING THAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE NOW LEGALLY ENFORCED AS LAWS.

Posted by Nomad: "Consult the taxation law, and critizice the law, not 3 years old gossip..."

--- AND HERE YOU ARE SAYING, THAT YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE 3 YEAR OLD GOSSIP, WHEN 3 YEARS AGO, PEOPLE WERE WARNING THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN. NOW YOU SAY, CRITICIZE THE LAW, that same law that was institued against the wishes of the people, FORCED on them. All because the US government caved in, and allowed EU a say in internet regulations, even when people were warning against it. Why would I criticize the law? I can tell you exactly where it went wrong, it went wrong in 1998, when EU got what they wanted, and when people were "hypothesising" what would happen.

9. I still haven't forgoten. WHERE, I ASK AGAIN, IS YOUR BACK UP ON THE ACCUSATION YOU HAVE MADE AGAINST ME, SAYING THAT I QUOTE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT.

[Grizzle]

Soback, I'm confused about your reference to the Garmin GPS VAT tax. I can't find a link to your reference in your posts. Can you provide it?

From what I can tell on the Garmin website:

A. New European Union (EU) regulations regarding the collection of Value-Added Taxes (VAT) on electronic commerce required Garmin to begin to collect VAT on purchases by customers residing in the EU beginning July 1, 2003. As orders from customers residing in the EU are concluded with GarminÔÇÖs UK subsidiary, Garmin Europe, VAT at the UK standard rate will be collected.

This is clearly stated for purchases.

Regarding the patch download, no such download tax statement could be found. But I did note that map updates are not free. They give the first one free then after that they charge a fee, or so it seems.

[Soback]

Certainly Grizzle.

http://shop.garmin.com/aviation/databases/...0&PN=GPSMAP+295

And you are completly right, when you found:

"VAT

New European Union (EU) regulations regarding the collection of value-added taxes (VAT) on electronic commerce required Garmin to begin to collect VAT on purchases by customers residing in the EU with effect from July 1, 2003. As orders from customers residing in the EU are concluded with Garmin's U.K. subsidiary, Garmin Europe, VAT at the U.K. standard rate will be collected."

That page above, is for purchase of an aviation database update. I am a pilot. Those updates come out every 28 days. Most of the time, all that changes are a few fixes, or a frequency you would use to comunicate with air traffic controllers. It's effectivly a patch that updates your GPS with more recent information. That's all it is. You are not buying a new program, you are updating a pre-existing one. The program (aviation database) is already installed in your GPS at the time of purchase.

But EU has decided that an update, adds value (obviously), and therefore the name "value added tax". One can tax patches for games (don't those patches add value to the game, such as not only more recent corrections and bug fixes, but new maps, or items?) Also, the point is, people have been saying that it would happen, and it did happen. Nomad is saying that those "hypothesis are old". The point of him saying that illudes me, because those very same hypothesis are a REALITY now, that as he himself pointed out, has BECOME LAW. He goes on to say, critique the law, not what people have been saying. Again, what he misses is, the whole nonsence COULD have been stoped back between 1998 and 2002, by DENYING EU a say in what happens on the internet. However, some people believed in the "fairness doctrine" and believed EU when they said that they will NOT regulate internet, but will seek more relaxed regulation and try to make it flourish. And those same people are TODAY, completly ignoring the fact that EU has blatantly LIED about their assurances from 1998. As soon as they got the control they were requesting, they have began instituting taxes, tougher regulations and imposing more government conrol.

Now that they want to take it a step farther, the whole thing is repeating itself, as a wise man once said, those who do not know history, are made to repeat it's mistakes.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

[ 10-01-2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Darkling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

The question is why the main root servers shall remain under unique US juridiction when the whole world is nowadays dependent of the net.

---

Most of the world depends on the US for their economy too, does this mean that the US should give control of Visa, Mastercard and American Express, since so much of the world's economy depends on them?

As you are so fond of pointing out, we do consume more resources than anyone else, should all of our Manufacturing facilities be turned over to the EU as well, so they can figure out a more "Fair & and Equitable" distribution of resources?

[Grizzle]

Thanks Soback. Although, since you have to pay for the update it is considered a commerce transaction. You pay for product, whether or not it's an update to a pre-existing product, you get taxed. If the downloads were free patches then I would agree with you that it is not justifiable. But I think for the time being it is clearly limited to pay for items only.

In any event, it's only a matter of time before the same occurs in this country. States are finding ways around the interstate commerce tax laws so you and I will be paying taxes on internet purchases sooner or later. Which I don't really have an issue with since it's just another sales tax and I would really consider it just the price of convenience for doing business on the internet.

Cool being a pilot btw, I've always had a desire to take lessons, but never got around to it. There's still time though.

[Soback]

Now, lets say you want to update your Universal Combat. You go and download a patch for it from one of the site (remember, it's a value added tax, and game patches add value to the game, the reason they can't do it right now is explained below). Since EU right now can't enforce it, they can't collect that update tax which adds value to your Universal Combat game.

"In order to even achieve it, you would have to try to track down people as to what their location is, what their private business is in order to force people beyond their jurisdictions to collect and remit taxes. And that's bad policy. "

http://news.com.com/2008-1082-800866.html?legacy=cnet

So, they keep wanting more control over traffic flow. If they get that control, or build their own servers. Then they can log and monitor the data transfer. When someone downloads a patch from 3000ad. EU will track it to SC, and will want to collect a tax. Now since here in US patches are free, how is SC going to pay them? Is he to make two different sites? Or is it his obligation to monitor where the request for download is coming from and charge any european downloading the patch? So, once EU gets what they want, they can come after induvidual companies in US, that don't follow throught with VAT collection BS. Remember, it's cutting into OUR companies profits, to monitor and maintain a separate downloading service for europeans.

EU can't enforce that VAT right now on every single download, but, they have already started doing it with more prominent companies like Garmin, because it's a huge corporation, it stands out, and every GPS has a serial number and it can be easily identified the place of use when you download an update for it. That's why the VAT tax on their updates is already enforced.

So, when and if EU gets their servers, or their control over traffic flow, and start identifying where the patches for the games come from (it can be any download, but I am using games, just for the sake of argument, because we are on a game forum) Here's what they will do.

"The second choice is for companies not to set up a physical presence in Europe but pay the tax rate for the country where the customer lives, which ranges from 15 percent in Luxembourg to 25 percent in Sweden. This option is complicated because it requires companies to collect information about each customer and to comply with many tax jurisdictions. European companies, by contrast, only charge the tax rate of the country where they are located. "

---AND if a company doesn't DO what is stated above

Back up link for my comentary posted below:

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment...erugy090303.asp

"The third option is for non-EU companies to ignore the new regulation. The cost of noncompliance could be steep because, according to the EU, it would force companies to pay back taxes and added fines of 100 to 200 percent of the back taxes, among other penalties. "

--- EU can't DO that right now, because it doesn't have the enforcment capability. With their own servers, or them controlling traffic flow, they can. Do you really want them coming after US companies? Do you really want us, US citizens having to pick up the costs of our companies collecting information about each customer and to comply with many tax jurisdictions in EU. And just like it says in the quote above "European companies, by contrast, only charge the tax rate of the country where they are located. " while US companies would not only have to charge the tax, but also pay for the extra work required in collectin, processing and storing EU customer information, adminestering and maintaining and all the beurocratic BS that would be imposed on them by EU, with, like I said, the costs picked up by me and you and other consumers.

-----Do you see the ugly head of EU? And what's really at stake.

"And this is where the EU's scheme becomes clear. It's all about creating more sources of revenue for the EU by allowing governments to tax income earned outside of their national borders. If the EU's pro-tax forces manage to enforce this new scheme, the French government would be able to collect taxes from the Washington-based Amazon.com. The company being taxed, of course, has no voice in the tax-and-spending decisions made by the French government. Nor does it benefit from the public services France provides with those tax dollars. "

[Grizzle]

Soback, I think you might be reading a bit too much into the term Value Added. It's just another sales tax and only applies to transactions where money changes hands. If the product/service/patch is free then no tax can be collected. What monetary amount would the tax be based upon if this were not so?

As for Garmin goes, that tax applies not because there is an electronic trail, but because the transaction for EU customers actually occurs in the UK (Garmin forwards EU transactions to their UK office for fulfillment/billing) That and the fact you must pay for the update, either in the form of a single fee, or service fee for the whole year.

However, once they do find a way to track transactions and someone from the EU purchases a product/service from the US, they will be taxed at the time of the transaction. But still, it's only in the case where money changes hands and not because a non-fee transaction "adds value".

[Guest]

Sorry Nomad, but right now, you're right, but the EU has a HISTORY of lying through their teeth, and if they are given ANY sort of control, this is INDEED what they shall do.

The EU has NEVER met a tax it didn't like, and sorry charlie, I AIN'T paying taxes to the EU, PERIOD, in any way, shape, or form. I won't pay them to the UN either.

THe US shall KEEP control of the internet, if the EU wants make their own and tax their users, that's FINE, but the REAL internet will remain in US hands, untaxed and unfettered, and when the EU internet begins to interfere in the REAL internet, then we should cut it out of the loop and isolate it.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Jaguar:

If changing position on a given subject is lying, then I think both the EU and the US are fairly balanced in that field.

---

US to EU: Are you going to charge taxes if we let you in?

EU: No, we will not be charging taxes.

People: Are you going to regulate and polute internet with your beurocracy?

EU: NO, we will not. We want LESS regulation, and have the internet flourish.

People: Are you going to tax us if we let you have a decission in the internet regulation process?

EU: We already said that we will not, we want the internet to grow, be easier to use, less beurocracy, less regulation, you know, we want it to flourish.

US: Well, alright. We will include you in our decission making process.

2 years later.....

EU: Alright suckers. Here's a VAT tax. Now, we want our own servers, and control over the traffic flow, domain assignments, ect...Oh, and by the way, NO worries, we also promise less regulation, less beurocracy, better internet, and no taxes. What happened before is completly irrelevant. We NEVER lied, we just changed our position.

ROFL

[Grizzle]

Well Soback, maybe that will happen maybe not, but it wouldn't be the first time any gov't has had an ulterior motive.

As for taxation being foisted upon the public when a gov't has clearly stated it wouldn't be, need I remind you of the now infamous quote "Read my lips, no new taxes."

You have so much energy and enthusiasm that you would probably be better served by focusing on the injustices occuring within our own borders. Start with Jeb Bush, he's one of the largest proponents of instituting an internet interstate commerce tax. (What's that? A Republican promoting new taxes!!)

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

As for taxation being foisted upon the public when a gov't has clearly stated it wouldn't be, need I remind you of the now infamous quote "Read my lips, no new taxes."

---

And he lost the next election. Probably on that alone.

quote:

---

Start with Jeb Bush, he's one of the largest proponents of instituting an internet interstate commerce tax. (What's that? A Republican promoting new taxes!!)

---

A lot of Republicans are for higher/more taxes. Nothing new - the Republicans have been out of touch with their voter base for a while now. A wonder they still get elected.

I'm registered Republican, and vote as such, but I have no illusions that all Republicans are conservative.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

You have so much energy and enthusiasm that you would probably be better served by focusing on the injustices occuring within our own borders.

---

If only Europeans, (ahem, Nomad) followed the same advice.

But in either case. Just like Nomad screams that what US does affects the rest of the world. By the same token. What EU does, especially with something as global as internet (by Nomads defenition, it's a global resource), it affects me too.

So, I don't turn a blind eye to something, just because it's outside of US borders. ESPECIALLY, when the ripple effect will hit US too.

I know how those europeans like to bash US all the time. While turning a blind eye on China, and especially on what's happening within their own borders. Well, now it's time to discuss Europe for a change, especially, like they themselfs like to point out, when it affects the rest of the world too.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

You have so much energy and enthusiasm that you would probably be better served by focusing on the injustices occuring within our own borders.

---

That wasn't the topic of the thread, now was it?

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

quote:

---

You have so much energy and enthusiasm that you would probably be better served by focusing on the injustices occuring within our own borders.

---

That wasn't the topic of the thread, now was it?

---

ROFL, since when do these sorts of threads stay on topic?

Actually, I'm just trying to show that no matter your country or political affiliation, when it comes right down to it, they're all pretty much the same. Governments tend to act in their own best interest instead of the public they are supposed to serve. Well... that and trying to stop Soback from giving himself an aneurism. I may disagree with the guy, but I wouldn't want him to burst a vein

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

Actually, I'm just trying to show that no matter your country or political affiliation, when it comes right down to it, they're all pretty much the same. Governments tend to act in their own best interest instead of the public they are supposed to serve.

---

I think you mean, government officials are all pretty much the same. There is a vast difference in the governments of EU and the U.S.

The U.S. system is one designed to counter corruption and greed through checks and balances and constitutionally-based restrictions on positional power.

[Grizzle]

And so it begins...