[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Taxing Problem (fwd)





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:31:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jean-Francois Avon <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Taxing Problem



>             Few jurisdictions have begun to grapple with the issue, but they
>             will, since many of them around the world are starved for
>             revenues. And when they do, their tax authorities will discover
>             the wonderland quality of the Internet. Two jurisdictions--the
>             state of Florida and Tacoma, Wash.--recently tried to impose
>             some level of taxation on e-commerce.

It is not everybody who say that their only wish is to get our keys for 
the sake of reading our love letters... [see later remark]

>             a Web site based in a low-tax jurisdiction. Distribution through
>             the Internet could make the tax authority just another
>             superfluous middleman.

Since when the tax man was a middleman?

>             problems. The very concept of "permanent establishment" in an
>             international tax context as the basis for taxation is
>             unworkable in the information age.

Basically, the law of causality starts to catch them up.  Money is 
an expression of Man's Reason, expressed through it's productive 
abilities. Since taxing is always coercitive, it goes against individuals's 
best judgment.  So, when there is nothing to physically coerce, they loose the 
ability to tax.

>             The time to explore Internet taxation issues is now--before
>             electronic commerce really heats up, before the enormous
>             economic potential it offers is lost in a welter of confusing,
>             conflicting, and counterproductive tax policies. 

"Economic Potential", Newspeak for "confiscation of production to finance 
other's peoples dreams".  And they 
realize that if they don't clamp on it *now*, it'll go through their 
fingers like fine dry sand.  

"To explore the [...] issues": Newspeak for "to bully the 
Freedom-of-e-commerce groups", Newspeak for "to figure out a way to keep 
milking them without killing them".  

>             Legislatures
>             worldwide need to hear from the business community about the
>             promise of electronic commerce, and about the need to protect it
>             through wise and coordinated tax policies

How in the hell tax policies will "protect" the electronic commerce?  
Easy: just the way the Mafia used to "protect" commerces from burning 
up...

Newspeak Master.

>             --policies that take
>             into account the way the Internet really works.

Newspeak for "how to keep milking, or rather, keep bloodsucking them without 
killing them?

And accessorily,   how exactly does it work?  In a totally non-private way.  
So, *naturally*,  businesspersons will want to protect their privacy.  But 
how in hell is the govt be able to do *any* monitoring of transactions if the 
transactions are encrypted?  Duhhh...

Note to Unicorn: how does 2+2 ?    :-)

>  
>             Maybe the business community needs to take the first step.
>             Corporations should initiate the debate on how to create tax
>             policies that do not cripple electronic commerce.

Peoples on Death Row are more lucky:: they don't get coaxed to weave their 
own hanging rope...

Why concede them their screwed-up, leech mentality basic premises? 
In no way should we engage in this discussion.  All we need to do is to 
expose our basic premises and say that the case rest.

>             There's only
>             one way to move Internet commerce from here to there, and that's
>             to engage in some forward-looking discussion.

I.e. there is only one way to make us swallow their Newspeak: to dazzle 
us with their fancy and rhetorics in order
 to make us abandon our basic premises.

But will we?   :-b 
                   
                 --8==

Ciao

jfa