backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by Evleos.. on Jan 15 at 9:45 AM

France may soon become the first nation to tax the internet

Taxing the internet has been a hotly debated proposition that is widely criticized by citizens, economists, and communications experts.  Still the government is always looking for new sources of income to pay for the escalating cost of military and social programs, so the issue enjoyed a long debate in the U.S. Congress, with an extension of the current tax ban passing only recently after much internal arguing within both parties.

Now French President Nicolas Sarkozy, oft labeled an iconoclast, has proposed taxing the internet in France to finance state-owned television.  The scenario provides the interesting reversal of a government looking to give television special privileges at the cost of internet, in this age, where usually the internet is constantly stealing TV's thunder.  President Sarkozy gave the announcement at a press conference from Paris's Elysee palace.

The President of France laid out an extremely controversial program to encourage state run television.  The first step, he says, is to "consider the total suppression of advertising on public channels" via legislation making them more viewer friendly.  In order to compensate for this loss of revenue, he suggests "an infinitesimal sales tax on new communication methods, like internet access and mobile telephony."

Audrey Mandela, founder of the independent London consulting agency Mandela Associates, is among the experts who say that gaining the support of the French legislature and the French people for such an initiative would be very tough.  She says, "Generally speaking, taxing the Internet is considered a bad idea, and a potential brake to net use and development, but without knowing the details of the French proposal, it's difficult to say how problematic an Internet tax there would be."

French internet use is growing by 14% per year, with a big 22% increase per year in high-speed connections.  Mandela suggested that a tax may cause some new users to give up the internet, hurting communications companies.  However, other users need the internet and simply could not give it up, so it’s not an option.  She explains, "The people most likely to balk at tax-increased Internet prices are new users who figure if it's getting more expensive, they can keep doing without it.  These days, there just aren't many people who could respond to higher Internet prices by saying, 'Forget it, I'll just do without the net from now on.  Ten, even five years ago, that wasn't necessarily so. Today, who has the choice?"

The likely proposal is estimated to be a flat tax per-user to Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  There are 16.1 million accounts in the nation, so a flat monthly surtax of one euro would raise roughly $290 million USD for the program (about 25% of the $1.2 billion USD in revenue from commercials on public TV). 

Some say the tax could be even higher, as France has very cheap internet service rates for Europe.  The average monthly bill is a mere $37, which is around 37% lower than the average of its neighboring countries.

Some critics point out that the plan will lead to job cuts in State TV's departments.  State TV official have come out strongly against the plan.  They point out that President Sarkozy's plan will send the over a billion dollars in advertiser revenue into the pockets of privately owned TV networks, including market leader TF1, owned by Martin Bouygues who is a close friend of Sarkozy. 

While some may simply say, "c'est la vie", this unsavory personal connection and the general implications of taxing the internet have many in France up in arms.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 1:29:54 PM , Rating: 3
> "Sarcozy [has] proposed taxing the internet in France to finance state-owned television..."

Better idea. Shut down state-owned television, sell that bandwidth to private firms, and use the money to finance development on next-gen internet services in the country.




RE: Better idea...
By TomZ on 1/11/2008 1:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
The difference in approaches that you point out clearly illustrates how socialist-leaning the French government is.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 1:46:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The difference in approaches that you point out clearly illustrates how socialist-leaning the French government is.

Either that, or how authoritarian masher's views are. People in france want state-sponsored TV, but instead he feels the need to not only take it away from them, but replace it with something they may not necessairly want.

You need to remember france is a democracy, and if any presidential candidate ran on a ticket that proposed getting rid of state-sponsored TV, they wouldn't get very far.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 1:50:26 PM , Rating: 4
> "Either that, or how authoritarian masher's views are"

Err, you might want to look up that word some time. Mandatory financing of state-sponsored media is certainly a more authoritarian measure than its absence.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 1:56:44 PM , Rating: 1
The financing of state sponsored media in france is supported by the people. Its a democratic choice.

You would prefer to take that service away from them, against their will, and pour the money from selling the resources into something they may not even want. I think its you who should be checking the dictionary.


RE: Better idea...
By Polynikes on 1/11/2008 2:04:11 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, because masher suggesting a different idea constitutes "authoritarianism."

The article says this has been a very controversial proposal... That doesn't sound like public support to me.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:10:41 PM , Rating: 3
> "Its controversial because the revenue would be coming from taxes of something other than TV"

Oops, the proposal also includes a bid to tax private TV to make up for the revenue from lost advertising on state TV. As reported by the BBC, that proposal is as controversial as the rest.


RE: Better idea...
By Hare on 1/12/2008 4:36:36 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
As reported by the BBC, that proposal is as controversial as the rest.
BBC, a state-owned corporation run by the BBC Trust; and is, per its charter, "free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners".

I don't see why every TV channel should be commercial/private. I personally believe that there's a place for state owned television because the whole idealogy behind the station is different from commercial channels.

Ps. TomZ can keep on watching Fox. Don't mind us crazy socialist Europeans that have a choice between n+1 commercial channels and state owned channels.


RE: Better idea...
By Spuke on 1/12/2008 6:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't mind us crazy socialist Europeans that have a choice between n+1 commercial channels and state owned channels.
Hey, as long as you're the one paying for it! It's all good to me.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:16:34 PM , Rating: 4
> "You would prefer to take that service away from them, against their will..."

Come now, surely you can see how silly this is. Removing a requirement that the government fund an activity is not an authoritarian measure.

By your logic, a law requiring Nazi Germany stop funding Jewish concentration camps would be authoritarian, because "the people" want them.

Authoritarian governments are defined by the measure of control they exert over the citizenry...regardless of whether or not that control is "popular" (and it usually is, at least at the start).

A law forcing people to pay for state-controlled television is authoritarian. Or more correctly, it's moreso than allowing people to choose whether or not they pay for private television services. This really isn't open to debate.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:22:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Removing a requirement that the government fund an activity is not an authoritarian measure.

quote:
Shut down state-owned television, sell that bandwidth to private firms, and use the money to finance development on next-gen internet services in the country.

Your proposal wasn't to drop government funding... it was to shift it away from where people want it to somewhere they may not want.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:29:48 PM , Rating: 1
No. My proposal was to stop forcing the citizens of France to pay for a service. Taxes are ultimately taken from their own pockets, after all.

Once that is done, the unused property (preexisting channels) obviously should then be sold off. Given those resultant funds were freely given (the purchaser chose to buy that bandwidth) there is no coercion involved.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:35:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My proposal was to stop forcing the citizens of France to pay for a service

Last I checked, France was a democracy (a very lively one at that... if you do something they don't like, you'll get riots rather quickly, which then in turns generally leads to changes in policy). They also support paying TV taxes to have state-sponsored TV.

Your proposal was to remove something that they want, and spend the money on something that you think they'll want.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:44:56 PM , Rating: 3
I'm generally in favor of smaller government. However, the majority of the French support a TV tax. Getting rid of something like that would not make sense. A government should not act against the will of its citizens.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:49:24 PM , Rating: 1
> "A government should not act against the will of its citizens. "

In all cases? What if 51% of the population want to enslave the other 49%? Democratic rule doesn't imply that any and all things are moral and just, simply because a majority of the people desire it.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're trying to compare violations of rights to advertising on TV? Sorry, but I do find that funny.

If you really want an answer to your question, I believe all governments should respect human rights. If they do not do so, they are not legitimate (and I doubt such a government would really respect the will of its people anyways).


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 3:09:39 PM , Rating: 3
What coercion? The current TV taxes in france are supported by the majority of population. I'm sure you understand how taxes work... everyone has to pay it, even if they don't use it.

Or are you trying to say that only people w/ kids who are going to public schools should pay a tax that covers education, while everyone else does not have to pay these taxes?


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 3:51:30 PM , Rating: 1
> "Or are you trying to say that only people w/ kids who are going to public schools should pay a tax that covers education"

Let's leave the question about whether people "should" have to pay out of the picture. That's a totally different question to debate.

My statement was simple. Considering two nations, one where people are forced to pay for a wide range of goverment services (popular or not) and one where people can freely choose to pay. All else being equal, the former nation is the more coercive and controlling. It is therefore the more authoritarian.

Youseem to believe that a democracy cannot exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially when democracy disolves into ochlocracy (mob rule).


RE: Better idea...
By Montrevux on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better idea...
By NT78stonewobble on 1/11/2008 9:33:13 PM , Rating: 3
Property rights are a violation of other individuals rights...


RE: Better idea...
By dluther on 1/11/2008 9:55:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Democratic rule doesn't imply that any and all things are moral and just, simply because a majority of the people desire it.


Unless, of course, you are an American and belong to the Republican party, where our President can enact legislation that essentially wipes out 40% of the Bill of Rights, vilifies people because they're brown and Mexican, or spends a trillion dollars on a war that we can't ever win -- all in the name of "National Security".


RE: Better idea...
By Lifted on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Better idea...
By nukunukoo on 1/13/2008 6:15:57 PM , Rating: 1
USA a Democracy? When did that happen? Why doesn't anyone tell me anything anymore???


RE: Better idea...
By roadrun777 on 1/15/2008 7:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a democracy as the elections of the people don't count. They get to have their polls and everyone feels like their voice is really heard, but in reality, it is money and judicial power that elects officials. You can buy a seat, or have the judges appoint you.
Anytime the "people", in America, come together and elect someone that the "power" doesn't really care for, you get these darned, random, voting errors that call for recounts, and, miraculously, end with another official being elected.


RE: Better idea...
By Oregonian2 on 1/11/2008 2:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. He should have said to use the revenue saved toward other existing government mandates, reduce their deficit spending (if they do that) or to reduce taxes by that amount. Much less controversy here and his main point would still the same without nits being attacked.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "reduce their deficit spending...or to reduce taxes by that amount"

Quite obviously, if the government stops spending several billion a year on these stations, then that will automatically reduce their deficit spending and/or tax rate"

Don't get confused by the comparitvely much smaller sum gained from bandwidth sale...money which isn't even being taken from the citizenry in the first place.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if the government stops spending several billion a year on these stations, then that will automatically reduce their deficit spending and/or tax rate

You really believe that?


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Don't dodge the point. Obviously it might get diverted elsewhere, but I wasn't suggesting that it be.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 3:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Fine... sticking to the point...

I believe if a majority of people in a country want a specific tax, it should not be removed. I just don't know how to make that any more clear.

For example, I want to pay taxes for road maintenance. So do most people (I'm guessing). If a politician came around and said that he's going to get rid of this and attempt to put in some system where everything is a toll road, I'd be extremely upset (hell, I'd probably riot).

Although the road example may be rather extreme since I would consider it to be necessary for my daily routine, the principle is the same.

In the same way, if there was a referendum in the country for a 10% hike in tax to cover health care, and it passed w/ the majority of the people, I would have to live w/ it, even if I didn't support the increase.


RE: Better idea...
By JustTom on 1/11/2008 8:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the same way, if there was a referendum in the country for a 10% hike in tax to cover health care, and it passed w/ the majority of the people, I would have to live w/ it, even if I didn't support the increase.


How about if 99.9999% of the population vote that Murst has to pay a tax hike of 100% of his wages to supply one kick ass pizza and beer party, would you be for it?


RE: Better idea...
By Frallan on 1/15/2008 3:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
Acctually the road analogy was very good - Most of the french probably concider the state owned public service TV as mandatory as roads... I say probably because i have no clue more then a general European understanding and the same situation in Sweden.

We take public service pretty serious over here some of it is good and some of it less good compared to the US system.


RE: Better idea...
By ttowntom on 1/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Better idea...
By Keeir on 1/11/2008 3:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
The funniest part is that Murst is essentially agruing that a person is not allowed to have/say an opinion different that the majority vote.


RE: Better idea...
By winterspan on 1/12/2008 6:27:22 AM , Rating: 3
I think we should re-title this one "ttowntom is an idiot"


RE: Better idea...
By Strunf on 1/14/2008 6:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
lol last time I checked your country didn't make that many referendum's... o wait that's unpatriotic.

Give me a break will you, by your definition I fail to see how the US is any less "authoritarian" than France.


RE: Better idea...
By senbassador on 1/13/2008 9:17:43 PM , Rating: 3
Actually they're both kinda authoritarian. Masher wants to use that money to pay for improving the internet technology, which is the same thing, just a different service. I say how about do what Masher says with auctioning off the TV bandwidth but instead of using the money for internet infrastructure, use it instead for a tax cut and let the people decide for themselves how to spend it. So yeah, Masher's idea to use the money for building internet technology is just as bad as funding TV.

ps-- Technically authoritarian implies some one guy telling everybody what to do. But in this case since "the people" want it, its more like tyranny of the majority. Yes, its democracy, but also unfair to the few who disagree with their taxes going to pay for TV. The US simply puts more weight into individual rights verses democracy. However even in the US your taxes pay for things like public education and not everyone agrees. The French just takes that concept further (and too far IMO).


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/13/2008 9:28:02 PM , Rating: 1
> "So yeah, Masher's idea to use the money for building internet technology..."

You missed a crucial point. "The money" here is the billions extracted annually from the French people to pay for public television. That would indeed be returned to them.

There was nothing in my statement to imply that tax money would be used to pay for Internet development.


RE: Better idea...
By senbassador on 1/15/2008 12:08:54 AM , Rating: 2
"Better idea. Shut down state-owned television, sell that bandwidth to private firms, and use the money to finance development on next-gen internet services in the country."

I would have guessed the "to finance development on next-gen internet services in the country" would imply just that. I don't get why not just use that money from the auctioned off bandwidth for a tax cut instead.


RE: Better idea...
By Evleos on 1/12/2008 8:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
Now this is funny: Sarkozy is actually leaning towards the rightwing.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 1:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of people in France want state-owned television, and they're willing to pay for it. Who are you to tell them they can't have it? Do you even live in France?


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 1:47:23 PM , Rating: 3
> "...and they're willing to pay for it."

If they were willing to pay for it directly, there wouldn't be any advertising on those channels, and there certainly wouldn't be any furor over this new proposal.

It's rather more accurate to say, "they want it, and they prefer someone else pays for it"

> "Do you even live in France? "

No one outside of France can have an opinion now? The fact is forcing the entire population to pay for state-subsidized entertainment is a violation of personal liberty.

It may be trivial to some, and certainly it's on a much smaller scale than, say, oppression in Burma, but people in other nations certainly have a right to speak out against it.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 1:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they were willing to pay for it directly, there wouldn't be any advertising on those channels, and there certainly wouldn't be any furor over this new proposal.

It's rather more accurate to say, "they want it, and they prefer someone else pays for it"

What are you talking about? If you pay for something through taxes, you're still paying for it. Who do you mean by "someone else"? The closest system to having "someone else" pay for something is *though* advertising, since money doesn't directly come out of the consumer's pocket. People in france actually prefer to pay for it w/ taxes so that there is less commercials. You seem to have this stuff mixed up.

quote:
The fact is forcing the entire population to pay for state-subsidized entertainment is a violation of personal liberty.

Right, because you would force that money into internet connections while depriving the people of what they actually want - TV service w/ fewer commercials. I think I like the system in France better.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "The closest system to having "someone else" pay for something is *though* advertising"

Which is the system they have in place already . And they're angry about it being removed. Get it now? The furor is over removing the advertising (letting someone else pay for it) and instead instituting a system that means they will be more directly paying for that service.

However, "more directly" is still not very good. Taxing internet users (which may or may not watch state TV) is still unfair. Why not tax watcher of state TV to pay for the Internet? Why not tax bird watchers to fund cat breeders? Where does it stop?

If the people of France *really* want to pay for state TV, why not put it on a subscription basis, and charge only those who actually watch it?


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which is the system they have in place already . And they're angry about it being removed. Get it now? The furor is over removing the advertising (letting someone else pay for it) and instead instituting a system that means they will be more directly paying for that service.

It seems you don't understand the French state-sponsored TV. In france, there already are TV taxes (how these are collected, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it is similar to other countries in Europe where you pay the tax if you own a TV).

France2, France3, France5, and Arté are state-sponsored TV stations that have greatly reduced advertising because of the TV tax.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "In france, there already are TV taxes (how these are collected, I'm not sure..."

But those taxes do not come close to footing the entire bill. The rest of France Télévisions budget comes from both advertising and direct funding from the French government, which is of course collected from people that may or may not watch State TV:

http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-picture...


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
So what if it doesn't cover the entire bill? People over there obviously prefer to have state-sponsored TV channels to have as few advertisements as possible. I still don't understand why you feel this should be taken away from them.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "People over there obviously prefer to have state-sponsored TV channels to have as few advertisements as possible"

Err, you really need to reread the entire story from the beginning. Do you not understand that the proposal to "have as few advertisements as possible" is what generated all this uproar?


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
The uproar seems to be because of 2 reasons:

1. The money would be coming from an internet tax
2. Some of the money would go to private networks instead of just the state-sponsored ones.

I believe both concerns are justified, and based on that, I don't think a law like this should pass.

However, your proposal to completely get rid of state-sponsored television in France is even more ridiculous.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
No, just the opposite in fact. Private networks would be taxed to pay for State TV. This story should clear things up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2238112,...


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 2:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
I think you should re-read the story you linked, it would clear some things up.

Let me quote some relevant sections:

quote:
Scrapping adverts from state TV would mean €800m (£600m) in advertising revenue immediately transferring to private stations.


quote:
Within minutes of Sarkozy making the announcement, shares in France's biggest private TV station, TF1, soared


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/11/2008 2:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "I think you should re-read the story you linked"

Again, you've misread clear English. The "revenue transfer" isn't coming from taxes, but because those advertisers who would otherwise buy commercials on state TV would (presumably) now buy them on private networks.

The FUNDING implications of this is a tax on both the Internet and those private TV stations, both used to fund state TV to make up for advertising losses:
quote:
The government plans to tax those private stations to fund state TV.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 3:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
I see, I got that wrong.

In any case, you claim that this is highly controversial. Why is that so then? The TV stations (who would be taxed) are obviously happy w/ this rule as they'll make much more money than previously, even after taxes.

I tried looking for the article on BBC that you were referring to, but the only article I found on BBC had no mention of any controversy behind the taxation of advertisements on private networks.


RE: Better idea...
By Noya on 1/11/2008 3:39:02 PM , Rating: 1
Masher, I can't believe you replied that many times to someone who clearly didn't get it, no less without sounding angry lol.


RE: Better idea...
By Keeir on 1/11/2008 3:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Murst, this is simply a case of supply and demand

There is currently in France a set amount of television advertisement time. If some of that time disappears (and no new stations will be created in the short term), then the average price of a television commerical will rise, increasing the profits of the private television stations without then doing a single thing.

If I heard a company was going to make 20% (EXAMPLE) more return on investment WITHOUT investing a single more dime, I would be first in line (a potentially long line) to buy the undervalued shares, which would make the price rise quickly.


RE: Better idea...
By Murst on 1/11/2008 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
I understand why they will make more money.

What I want to understand is why this is controversial.

If everyone makes more money, what's the problem? Or is it advertisers what are causing the controversy?


RE: Better idea...
By Keeir on 1/11/2008 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Some critics point out that the plan will lead to job cuts in State TV's departments. State TV official have come out strongly against the plan."

There we go.

I think if the question is put to the public increase thier Internet bill by 10% (4/37) then you will see some outcry as well from people and ISPs.


RE: Better idea...
By Evleos on 1/12/2008 8:46:35 AM , Rating: 2
You have apparently no knowledge of economy. The state must take responsebility for certain activities, like military. If it was up to the individual to pay for the military, it would most like become a 'freerider'; expect the neighbour to pay. This is the same for things like streetlight, public television, environment, policing etc. The individual will have more 'utility' while not paying, but expecting everyone else to pay. The result is that none of those services would function properly, a loss for everyone.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/12/2008 9:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "You have apparently no knowledge of [xxxx]..."

Why are such statements almost invariably made by someone who has even less understanding of the subject?

> "The state must take responsebility for certain activities, like military"

The military and police, of course, yes. These benefit everyone regardless. But more importantly, the state has in general a monopoly on the use of force.

Mandated payments to provide state-supported education is a far different matter. When citizens start seeing that as their right, what's next? Free PS3s for the masses, provided for by our tax dollars?


RE: Better idea...
By Evleos on 1/13/2008 6:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. Give me a break! No wait, you're quite entertaining.

"Why are such statements almost invariably made by someone who has even less understanding of the subject?"

I do apparently have more knowledge regarding economics than you. (I have actually finished the macroeconomic part of my studies)

"The military and police, of course, yes. These benefit everyone regardless. But more importantly, the state has in general a monopoly on the use of force."

I don't see how 'the state has in general a monopoly on the use of force' is relevant? Anyhow, what you said here too is not true.

"Mandated payments to provide state-supported education is a far different matter. When citizens start seeing that as their right, what's next? Free PS3s for the masses, provided for by our tax dollars?"

Hmm, I don't think I talked about this, but here we go: Where I'm from, education is free. Entrance to good universities/Colleges is based purely on merits! You won't have some mediocre guy study at the most popular educations, just because he got a stinky rich (and powerful) father. We do of course have private higher education, but that is for people that does not have good enough grades to study at a 'state' college/university.

And your last sentence just shows how redicolous you are.


RE: Better idea...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/13/2008 8:27:59 PM , Rating: 3
> "I don't see how 'the state has in general a monopoly on the use of force' is relevant? "

It should be obvious. Since the state has that monopoly, obviously it must provide it, by financing both a police and a military force.

> "Colleges is based purely on merits! You won't have some mediocre guy study at the most popular educations, just because he got a stinky rich (and powerful) father."

Your word choice is quite illuminating. Anyone who is rich must be also "stinky" and "powerful". However, there's a problem with your psuedo-utopian society. Colleges are expensive to operate; they must be paid for by someone. So regardless, that "stinky" rich fellow is going to be footing the bill.

In your case, rather than him being allowed to choose whether he wishes to pay for his own son (or others, if he's feeling philanthropic), he's forced to pay. So he's busily writing checks for some snotty-nosed chap in a beret, who rather than being grateful, likely spends his time berating the very people paying his bills.

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is no better than the reverse. It's immoral and oppressive, no matter how pretty a face you try to put on it...the tyranny of the masses, rather than the tyranny of the few. The valuation of egalitarianism over freedom.

In any case, you still dodged the point. We weren't discussing education, but entertainment. You somehow seem to believe the state "has" to provide public entertainment, that people have some sort of moral right to free spectacles, paid for by the sweat of others.

Does the phrase "bread and circuses" have any meaning to you? You might look it up sometime and consider the relevance...especially the circuses part. Truly, it's the mark of a decaying, decadent society.


RE: Better idea...
By Evleos on 1/15/2008 9:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
"It should be obvious. Since the state has that monopoly, obviously it must provide it, by financing both a police and a military force."

We have private security firms and even (mercanary) private armies. If you have red a little bit history(condottieri anyone?), you will see that non-state armies are very important. Anyways, I don't see how this challenges my point regarding problems with freeriders.

"Your word choice is quite illuminating. Anyone who is rich must be also "stinky" and "powerful". However, there's a problem with your psuedo-utopian society. Colleges are expensive to operate; they must be paid for by someone. So regardless, that "stinky" rich fellow is going to be footing the bill."

I believe that Colleges should be based on merits, not on family wealth. This is much more flexible and promotes a more efficient society. It seems that you adhere a little bit to the old days of royalty in Europe, where blood (thus money) was much more important than merits. The realization of the latter was very important in the 'professionalization' of the West.

"In any case, you still dodged the point. We weren't discussing education, but entertainment. You somehow seem to believe the state "has" to provide public entertainment, that people have some sort of moral right to free spectacles, paid for by the sweat of others."

Hmm. There is consensus in Europe for state supported television, and they are by the way so much more than entertainment. Ever seen BBC? They make loads of excellent documentaries. The many should not oppress the few, but if we keep on saying this on every descicion we do not agree with, democracy would not work. Ever studied the Spanish Civil War? Neither sides respected nor understood democracy. Anyways, since television is a non-competetive non-exclusive product (One viewer can't exclude another one), I refer to my freerider bit further up.

"Does the phrase "bread and circuses" have any meaning to you? You might look it up sometime and consider the relevance...especially the circuses part. Truly, it's the mark of a decaying, decadent society. "

I do unfortunately feel that television in the US is much more based on circuses (OMG BREAKING NEWS PARIS HILTON GOT OUT OF BED! CNN TOP STORY! Britney Spears shaved her hair, OMG OMG!), perhaps because they have no responsible counterbalance that everyone can access? I have spent a year (Junior High) in the US, and the TV-channes was generally bad, stuffed with brainwashing comercials every 15-minutes. This is 'inefficient'.

"bread and circuses" It is funny that jo mention this mainstream quote, considering that it refers to lack of political interests. Political participation (election turnup etc) is much higher in Europe than in the US......


RE: Better idea...
By Strunf on 1/14/2008 6:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
OMG The fact the entire US population payed for a war many didn't/don't want sure is a violation of personal liberty... did they ask your opinion? that pretty much tells how much your "personal liberty" counts.


RE: Better idea...
By TwistyKat on 1/11/2008 1:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

Wouldn't it be nice if we Americans started respecting what people in other countries want for themselves instead of thinking we know what is better for them?

I mean, really. We do not have the intellectual or cultural high-ground here after all.

BTW: Any breaking news on Britney Spears today?


RE: Better idea...
By Ringold on 1/11/2008 4:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
And Europe, which has botched virtually everything it's done for the last century, does have the moral high ground. WW1, WW2, communism, the Srebrenica massacre, turning their cultured noses in to the air during the Rwandan genocide, ongoing corruption in Eastern Europe, eroding of economic liberty, light-weight democratic credibility regarding the EU constitution -- that fails to sound much better than our own record.

As for Spears, if the world didn't pay so much attention to her, she'd shrivel up and die in some crack house.


RE: Better idea...
By NT78stonewobble on 1/11/2008 10:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
And there are those europeans who see americans as europeans who couldnt hack it here...


RE: Better idea...
By JoeBanana on 1/13/2008 3:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
At least Europe learned something from ww1, ww2... and is now united to fight for peace in europe and the world(like first place in humanitarian aid and leader in climate change) Of course it's not all black and white but its not that black as you show it.

As for state channels... I watched a lot of good films which commercial channels would never show because they are not mainstream. But on the other hand a 3/4 of the program is crap. So I have some mixed feelings...


RE: Better idea...
By mcnabney on 1/11/2008 1:49:13 PM , Rating: 4
Apparently they aren't willing to pay for it. Instead they want to tax commerce generated from a competing technology.


RE: Better idea...
By dubldwn on 1/11/2008 1:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t think they should get rid of public television because it ensures more viewpoints are heard, not just the ones the corporations want you to hear. I also think that taxing the internet to fund public television is wrong – they’re two different venues. The viewers should pay for it.


RE: Better idea...
By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/11/2008 1:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
Or better still, if you have to tax something, tax the TVs and service providers to pay for state-owned television. If you're going to tax the Internet, put that money back into Internet services, like, say, fibre-optic lines throughout major urban areas or streaming video from the state-owned TV stations.

I know I'd be mightily unhappy if I was forced to pay for a service I barely use (I don't watch much TV anymore; basically just the news headlines).


RE: Better idea...
By beepandbop on 1/13/2008 7:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
Or just adopting the French-invented Lassez Faire, screwing off, minimizing taxes, and letting people spend their own money. In the process, getting rid of the healthcare systems which just let the whole country turn into one "lolwut" leech, as well as throwing out all the lazies and degenerates who just want to mooch on civilization whilst rioting and being a threat to society.

More comes from less.


typical french and european idiocy
By rika13 on 1/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: typical french and european idiocy
By NT78stonewobble on 1/11/2008 9:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
Better red than dead in the us health care... or ... not...

Communism != Socialism


By andrinoaa on 1/12/2008 5:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
communism = fascism - USA style!


RE: typical french and european idiocy
By Evleos on 1/12/2008 8:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
Ever noticed how 'communist' countries like Norway (They had a 6% growth this year, hmm.. Now how much did the US grow?) and Ireland are wealthier pr capita than the US? And that without having 10million non-accounted for ailiens working for them? Noticed how Denmark soon will surpass the US, and that without racking up extreme amounts of debts?

It is disgusting how the US government today gives its children such a massive debt to handle.

And the American idea? Keep the poor poor while the rich gets richer? A wage of 6-7$pr hour? Ok, I would get about 20$, and that's without education.


RE: typical french and european idiocy
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2008 11:22:30 AM , Rating: 2
The only ones keeping the poor poor are the poor. They made their own choices in life. So its their job to either live with their situation or do something about it. It's not the government's job to get people out of poverty. Everyone in this country gets a free education should they want it. If you choose not to take full advantage of it, that's your decision.

And don't give me BS about lack of opportunity. If you do well in school, regardless of the school, you can get into college. And if you do the work, you can get the grades and graduate.

And if anything, the poor have an advantage over many in the middle class because they're eligible for more federal money to help them pay for school. I was eligible for only loans because my parents "made too much" and the government decided that they should be able to give me $20,000 a year to help with college. Yes there are a multitude of other scholarships out there but I'm just talking about federal help.

Anyone in this country has an opportunity to make something of themselves if they want to.


By andrinoaa on 1/12/2008 5:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
What utter crap.


By JoeBanana on 1/13/2008 3:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
But think how many people who deserve it more could get to that college if they had money. Of course there is down side that then the school wouldn't had so much money and the quality would probably decrease. But my personal opinion is that you should be a part of the best college "only" if you have the best knowledge, not money and moderate knowledge.


RE: typical french and european idiocy
By masher2 (blog) on 1/12/2008 2:48:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "Ever noticed how 'communist' countries like Norway (They had a 6% growth this year"

Eh? Norway's been averaging around half that for quite a while. Their growth in 06 was 3%, and 2007 data is forecast to come in at around 3.3%. In any case, since Norway has repeatedly refused to join the EU, I don't believe highlighting them is appropriate.

Instead of selecting outlying examples, why not look at the real forces in the European economy? France for instance, with its 2% growth rate, 9% unemployment rate, and industries unable to survive without heavy state subsidies.


RE: typical french and european idiocy
By JoeBanana on 1/13/2008 4:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to point this out but US growth rate was also around 3%, and unemployment at 5%(EU 7%).


RE: typical french and european idiocy
By masher2 (blog) on 1/13/2008 5:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
Why sorry? In the past few decades, the US has moved considerably away from the laissez-faire capitalism that made it strong, whereas many European nations have retreated from the stultifying socialistic policies that choked off economic growth. So it's no surprise to see their economies becoming more similar.


By JoeBanana on 1/14/2008 3:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yes that's true the EU is on the right track.


RE: typical french and european idiocy
By Evleos on 1/13/2008 6:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
So where did you find that weather-information?

http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article2186894.ece

It is unfortunately in Norwegian, but it says that mainland-growth for 2007 is expected to be at 5.8%.

"Instead of selecting outlying examples, why not look at the real forces in the European economy? France for instance, with its 2% growth rate, 9% unemployment rate, and industries unable to survive without heavy state subsidies. "

State subsidies keeps growth low, at least for a developed country. So this isn't 'cheating'. In fact, the only 'winner' is the ones that buy products from a company that's subsidized - artificially low prices. But France, Germany have other problems not related to their economic policy, e.g. France got a massive immigrant (muslim) population that has completely failed to intrigate (spelling yes..) and Germany suffers from the failure of eastern-germany to 'ressurect'.

Germany do btw have a trade surplus, and is not racking up debt. That gives freedom in the future. While others ties the hands of future generations...


RE: typical french and european idiocy
By masher2 (blog) on 1/13/2008 7:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Germany...is not racking up debt. That gives freedom in the future. While others ties the hands of future generations... "

Oops-- Germany's total external debt as of 2007 is $3.9 trillion. That's $47,560 per citizen. US external debt is $10.04 trillion, equating to a per capita figure of $33,466.

The average German is far more in debt, actually.

> "So where did you find that weather-information?"

The data on Norway's economic growth (which contradicts your

http://www.economist.com/countries/Norway/profile....
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2007/cr071...

These are *real* figures, not future estimates.

> "France...have other problems not related to their economic policy, e.g. France got a massive immigrant (muslim) population "

France's immigrant numbers are substantially lower (both in real numbers and as a percent of total population) than that of the United States. So your point is the opposite of what you intended.


By Evleos on 1/15/2008 9:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
Uhm. Those are just errononous predictions, and how can you determine the BNP growth in 2007 while still in 2007? That imf report is from last June...
How can you constantly bring false information?

"Oops-- Germany's total external debt as of 2007 is $3.9 trillion. That's $47,560 per citizen. US external debt is $10.04 trillion, equating to a per capita figure of $33,466."

Source?

Compare these two:
US: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world...
Germany: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world...

Germany got a positive current account and a trade surplus. I hope I don't have to mention the rather unfortunate US numbers.

Anyways. I don't think this is only 10trillions:
$ -811,500,000,000 - US current accounts.

"France's immigrant numbers are substantially lower (both in real numbers and as a percent of total population) than that of the United States. So your point is the opposite of what you intended. "
Gosh! I just realized that 99,9% of all Americans are immigrants! OMG.
Seriously, there are differences between immigrants. And France has failed to intrigate those new frenchies. Immigrants, if they start to work etc, will have a positive impact on the economy - you get workforce whose upbringing you have not paid for.


Stupid
By Murst on 1/11/2008 1:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Don't they already have a TV tax in France that is supposed to cover exactly this? I know other countries in Europe charge a tax if you own a television.

Having a tax on the internet to pay for TV is insane though. If you're going to tax the internet, use the money for internet-related things, like better connections, etc. Forcing internet users to subsodize TV doesn't make any sense at all (except that he probably got lots of campaign donations for this very purpose, and is not acting on it).




RE: Stupid
By Shoal07 on 1/11/2008 1:45:21 PM , Rating: 4
It's socialism. Tax the hell out of everything and use it for public services that in other, non-socialist countries, are private (like TV, medical, etc). What would you do if the US Fed initiated ANOTHER flat 14% tax on ANYTHING, let alone the net? It would lead to riots here (maybe) - in a socialist country, it's par for the course. I was just in Iceland, they pay something like 60% tax (once you figure in all 3 different flat taxes). Wow... I thought we had it bad here. Of course, they don't pay for many of the private services that I do in the US, but I'd rather pay 20-30% less tax on average (I'd say I pay about 35-40%, most) and pick and choose what insurance, TV services, internet provider, etc, that >I< want.

In the end we both might end up paying the same for the same essential services (well, some are essential) but I have more choice.


RE: Stupid
By Oregonian2 on 1/11/2008 2:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's socialism. Tax the hell out of everything and use it for public services that in other, non-socialist countries, are private (like TV, medical, etc). What would you do if the US Fed initiated ANOTHER flat 14% tax on ANYTHING, let alone the net?


That's not done in the US regularly now (may be called "fees" in many cases to avoid the word "tax")? Phone service is already "fee'd" and allowing internet "fees" is only postponed. And it's not only the Feds, the state, county, metro, and city taxing authorities all are at it for the most they can get too.


RE: Stupid
By Ringold on 1/11/2008 4:36:36 PM , Rating: 1
Don't forget that here in America, corporate taxes and all the taxes they "share" with employees contributes to roughly 20% higher sticker prices at retail as well. They're simply embedded, so that the average Joe doesn't even know he's being taxed (again).


RE: Stupid
By jtesoro on 1/11/2008 10:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
But in spite of all that, Americans still pay significantly less retail anyway (compared to Europeans at least).


RE: Stupid
By EuroGamer on 1/12/2008 2:31:16 AM , Rating: 2
Oh really? The buying power of the US citizen (average salary wage / prices) isn't lower than Europe in some departments. Then again, in others, the US is lower than Europe.

And it's FAR from significant. All I know is that the average salary in my country is approximately 2700 $ higher than the US one, which is quite important in "buying power" which is how you mesure real retail pricing.


RE: Stupid
By masher2 (blog) on 1/12/2008 9:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
> "Then again, in others, the US is lower than Europe"

I think you've misunderstood some recent news stories about the newfound buying power of Europeans visiting the US.

In terms of real buying power (Purchasing Power Parity is the accepted economic term), the US is substantially ahead of all European countries (with the exception of tiny Luxembourg):

http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt62/pwt62_for...


RE: Stupid
By EuroGamer on 1/12/2008 1:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, USA is at 1.00 and my country is at 1.88... That's close to DOUBLE the buying power!

Finland, Luxembourg, Sweden, etc. As for the other countries, back in 2004 (given that the results aren't more recent than that from that website), they're all hovering around 0.9 to 0.99 so almost like America.

But that website is not really what I'd consider "credible". I mean, they give TURKEY a PPP of 911798.45 so...


RE: Stupid
By masher2 (blog) on 1/12/2008 2:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "USA is at 1.00 and my country is at 1.88... That's close to DOUBLE ...they give TURKEY a PPP of 911798.45 so... "

You've misread the statistics. The "PPP" in their results is PPP over GDP. To compare purchasing power, you want real (ppp-adjusted) GDP per capita.

You'll have a hard time finding any source more credible than the Penn World Table, which is, I believe, the most cited such source among economic researchers.


RE: Stupid
By EuroGamer on 1/12/2008 2:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Unless I'm going blind, I can't didn't find any adjusted results (per GDP the first time I looked) and couldn't still find it... Had to go with the next best thing.

As for the most cited, I'm a second year student in economics and none of my teachers have ever taken any statistics from it. Hell, I don't think I see it used in The Economist either, but I'll check again.


RE: Stupid
By masher2 (blog) on 1/12/2008 2:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you prefer to use the IMF data, the results are not much better for the EU. Germany and France come in with a per-capita PPP 27% below the US, Spain 35% below the US, Portugal 47% below the US, and Poland 63% below the US. The only two above are Ireland and Norway, and that only by a slim 5%.


RE: Stupid
By Strunf on 1/14/2008 6:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
All this while forgetting that the US has a much higher income disparity... 10% holds 80% of the wealth isn't it?...


What's next?
By rsasp on 1/11/2008 3:51:35 PM , Rating: 3
Lol ok "internet tax" what's next? gasoline tax?




RE: What's next?
By marvdmartian on 1/11/2008 3:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
The French government is being real hush-hush about it, but this tax is really to help pay for the big brouhaha (party), the next time the Germans invade!


RE: What's next?
By Spuke on 1/11/2008 9:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
We have taxes on gas in here in CA.


RE: What's next?
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2008 11:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
Gas taxes already exist. Where have you been? There's both a federal tax on gas and I believe every state has a tax on gas. It varies state to state though.


RE: What's next?
By Strunf on 1/14/2008 6:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
That's his point... everything is taxed one way or another, heck some things are even taxed twice or more. Depending on where you bay your gas it may have been taxed like 2 or 3 times before getting to your hand.


Is this New?
By clovell on 1/11/2008 1:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty certain that there's FCC taxes and fees on my cable bill, but without having ti in front of me, I can't swear to it. Don't we already do this in the states?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't really support the idea, but after I think about it, it doesn't sound so bad.




RE: Is this New?
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2008 1:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there are taxes on that. There are also local taxes on cable. But there are no taxes for actually just using the internet. That is what they are proposing.

Don't be surprised if in 10 years we're paying an internet tax here in the states. Especially if the Democrats ever truly get control. They already want to tax the middle class for universal health care that only the poor will use and not have to pay for.


RE: Is this New?
By NT78stonewobble on 1/11/2008 9:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, surreee.

Because it's a boon to be poor and then get free healthcare.

So when / if the US gets free healthcare you'll have everybody throwing away theyr money on the streets to enter that darn poverty nirvana...

/sarcasm off...


More Taxes
By BuffetKiller on 1/11/2008 2:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
The "Internet" is already taxed. Think about it: you pay taxes on your link to the ISP and taxes on many of your online subscriptions. What more do they want to tax? Are they going to tax sunlight next?




RE: More Taxes
By Christopher1 on 1/13/2008 9:00:45 PM , Rating: 1
What are you talking about? Most things on the internet right now do NOT have any taxes on them. Hell, my high-speed internet connection doesn't have any taxes on it, per say. It does have some 'government mandated fees' on it that I am not liking, but.... the government isn't going to get rid of them.


RE: More Taxes
By Frallan on 1/15/2008 4:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
Those fees are taxes under another name m8...


GERMANY already has the INTERNET TAX!
By CubicleDilbert on 1/12/2008 1:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
Just in case if you wondered about France going it alone all the way with this stupid tax, remember that Germany last year introduced a hefty internet tax. You have to pay even if you don't have internet! So much for authoritarian governments.

In Germany you have to pay a TV license fee (€17,85 per month) if you have a TV. They put state TV on the internet with little post stamp sized mickey-mouse streams. Now if you own any internet capable device (UMTS cell phone, notebook, or an internet router at a provider) you have to pay the TV license. Until they get internet TV to real broadband you have to pay the Radio License (€5,56 per month). Later it will be the TV fee.
You have your own business?
You pay twice!! Have 3 subsidiaries. You pay triple!!! Etc...
Imagine you are a lawyer with 2 kids who go to college and who depend financially on you. You pay private, office and 2x kids = 4 times the TV license.

There have been German courts who penalized a family for paying 9 (in words:nine) times the TV fee per month.

Even a deaf citizen using a notebook had to pay the radio license for his notebook.
Even if you don't have internet, you have to pay because you potentially could connect to internet!

GERMANY IS STILL THE SAME AUTHORITARIAN STATE AS EVER!!




RE: GERMANY already has the INTERNET TAX!
By Clauzii on 1/12/2008 6:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
In Denmark we have almost the same system. The old TV License is replaced by Media License. The biggest difference is that everyone with access to media (internet basically), no matter what device, have to pay. The amount is pretty much the same as TV License, around Euro 290,-.

It has been free for so long. But know we NEED the internet, it's easy for the governments around the world to start getting peoples money. Once again :(


By Christopher1 on 1/13/2008 9:04:33 PM , Rating: 1
Well, the real thing that we need, in all honesty, is no or very little government. The only things that government should be doing is crime prevention, and then only certain things that EVERYONE can agree are crimes: forcible rape, stealing from someone else, murder (premeditated and not).... anything else, government should not be getting involved in unless it has a big benefit to society, like a nationalized health care system.


Who's at the end of the cakewalk?
By lemonadesoda on 1/11/2008 6:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
If Sarkozy, or the other Princes of Paris, or their cronies, have shares or options in private TV or other vested interests in media related businesses, then they need to be hung, drawn and quartered. (pardon! guillotined)

What a circus! Pass me a slice of cake.




By Evleos on 1/12/2008 8:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
DailyTech stratigically left out the bit about increasing taxation on private tv-stations, leading you to believe that Sarkozys actions are due to private vested interests.


tom petty said it best
By Gul Westfale on 1/11/2008 11:17:08 PM , Rating: 4
"and all the boys upstairs wanna see
how much you'd pay for what you used to get for free"

- from The Last DJ




the french
By GlassHouse69 on 1/12/2008 7:09:06 PM , Rating: 4
the french.

who needs them.

smurf them




My opinion
By Setsunayaki on 1/14/2008 5:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
This proposition comes from two facts:

1) The European Union Parliament wants it and since it operates above "National-state" government as a group of appointed and not elected officials.

2) France talks about freedom, but its more economically oppressive. European Taxes tend to be 10 - 20% sales tax, depending on where you are, combined with income taxes and land tax....

Taxes have always been used as a way to keep the class system the same and people economically oppressed. Force the population to work and pay taxes and have a WHOLE EUROPEAN UNION PARLIAMENT above all member nations and the result is a large and oppressive unit.

At least one can elect the members of the Centralized government in the United States...though lately no one has been upholding the constitution.

My advice for france is instead of taxing their people more and more.....to actually make their Television Programming available on the internet as well...There is a far greater audience...

They can invent a system to replace television that would stream the shows from the internet and much better quality and those shows could become available online...The potential for money is there and one can get real ratings if viewers can decide without being oppressed on what they watch.

Of course....Since Europe is controlled by a group that started as a PRIVATIZED ECONOMIC COMMISION that was known for monopolizing resources and economic oppression...its only natural that Europe squashes any hope for freedom by taxing the hell out of people in everything that they do...

I mean....look at ENGLAND...where you pay a council tax....You might as well say "here is a tax for the air you breathe and the ground you walk on" and give it another name...




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki