POL Politiek
Discussies en diepgaande gesprekken over de politiek in de breedste zin van het woord kun je hier voeren.
Was het niet ook Juncker die dit zo geregeld heeft namens Luxemburg?quote:Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 13:13 schreef nostra het volgende:
[..]
Als de Guardian en hun buitenlandse kompanen nu eens gedegen onderzoek zouden doen naar de constructies die Amazon hanteert en wie waarom voor hoeveel benadeeld zou worden, dan heb je best een interessante casuļstiek.
De jaarrekening van de Luxemburgse dozenschuifholding (die overal in de EU vaste inrichtingen zal hebben) downloaden en dan wat conclusies trekken uit parameters als omzet en commerciėle winst versus belastingdruk is gewoon totaal nietszeggend. Helemaal als je dat lardeert met gefoeter op het feit dat er winst naar de Luxemburgse entiteit geschoven zou worden, terwijl de crux nu juist is dat die verlies draaien.
Verder is het natuurlijk totaal onzinnig om volledig legale activiteiten maar op een andere manier te willen belemmeren, omdat de uitkomst je niet aanstaat. Dan pas je de wet aan, of je zeurt niet. Komt er sowieso binnenkort niet een uitspraak in de zaak die Amazon en Luxemburg zelf (!) hebben aangespannen? Da's wel interessant leesvoer dan.
Niet eigenhandig, maar hij was wel MP en MinFin toentertijd.quote:Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 13:21 schreef tjoptjop het volgende:
[..]
Was het niet ook Juncker die dit zo geregeld heeft namens Luxemburg?
Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
Far across the moonbeam I know that's who you are
Far across the moonbeam I know that's who you are
Er bestaat geen ethische consumptie in een kapitalistisch systeem.
Verder heeft bol.com in ons land al jaaaaarenlang een de facto monopolie op wat Amazon aanbiedt (zoveel mogelijk spullen online verkopen en ook zo snel mogelijk bezorgen tegen een zo laag mogelijke prijs) , dus ik zie de Nederlandse webwinkels nog niet zo snel omvallen vanwege amazon. Natuurlijk heeft Amazon economics of scale die bol.com niet heeft maar ik heb wel het idee dat oudere mensen van bol zullen blijven kopen. Jongere mensen zullen wellicht prijzen gaan vergelijken en dan bij Amazon kopen als het goedkoper is.
Verder heeft bol.com in ons land al jaaaaarenlang een de facto monopolie op wat Amazon aanbiedt (zoveel mogelijk spullen online verkopen en ook zo snel mogelijk bezorgen tegen een zo laag mogelijke prijs) , dus ik zie de Nederlandse webwinkels nog niet zo snel omvallen vanwege amazon. Natuurlijk heeft Amazon economics of scale die bol.com niet heeft maar ik heb wel het idee dat oudere mensen van bol zullen blijven kopen. Jongere mensen zullen wellicht prijzen gaan vergelijken en dan bij Amazon kopen als het goedkoper is.
Let's all accept each other's differences and different opinions and live together in harmony :)
Dat doen ze niet echt en Amazon verkoopt zelf zo veel niet, het is grotendeels een webinterface en logistieke ondersteuner voor kleinere winkeliers.quote:Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 11:06 schreef junkiesietze het volgende:
zolang zij alles goedkoper dan andere webshops verkopen gaan ze heeeeel groot worden.
"The enemy isn't men, or women, it's bloody stupid people and no one has the right to be stupid." - Sir Terry Pratchett.
Je moet alleen als kleinere winkelier niet te succesvol worden want dan maakt amazon je producten na en drukken ze je uit de markt. Is vaak genoeg gebeurd.quote:
[..]
Dat doen ze niet echt en Amazon verkoopt zelf zo veel niet, het is grotendeels een webinterface en logistieke ondersteuner voor kleinere winkeliers.
Ik kan mij weinig, of eigenlijk geen een, producten herinneren waarbij dat gebeurt is. Amazon maakt niet zo gek veel producten. Nou ja, eigenlijk geen maar ze worden als Amazon op de markt gezet.quote:
[..]
Je moet alleen als kleinere winkelier niet te succesvol worden want dan maakt amazon je producten na en drukken ze je uit de markt. Is vaak genoeg gebeurd.
"The enemy isn't men, or women, it's bloody stupid people and no one has the right to be stupid." - Sir Terry Pratchett.
Toch gebeurt het wel, ik kon zelf zo snel even geen beter artikel vinden dan deze die helaas achter een paywall zit: https://www.wsj.com/artic(...)products-11587650015 maar er is vast meer te vinden.quote:
[..]
Ik kan mij weinig, of eigenlijk geen een, producten herinneren waarbij dat gebeurt is. Amazon maakt niet zo gek veel producten. Nou ja, eigenlijk geen maar ze worden als Amazon op de markt gezet.
Ja, ik ben het volledig met je eens dat dit soort zaken discutabel zijn en niet mogen gebeuren.quote:
[..]
Toch gebeurt het wel, ik kon zelf zo snel even geen beter artikel vinden dan deze die helaas achter een paywall zit: https://www.wsj.com/artic(...)products-11587650015 maar er is vast meer te vinden.
"The enemy isn't men, or women, it's bloody stupid people and no one has the right to be stupid." - Sir Terry Pratchett.
Hoop bombarie van mevrouw Vestager, maar weer teruggefloten.
----
Amazon. AMZN 1.05% com Inc. struck a new blow to European Union’s efforts to wring more tax from big tech companies when the bloc’s second highest court sided with the company over a $300 million tax bill.
An EU court in Luxembourg on Wednesday annulled a 2017 decision from the European Commission, the EU’s top antitrust authority, that had ordered Amazon to pay 250 million euros in taxes to Luxembourg, the latest of several big EU tax decisions to be overturned.
The decision is a victory for Amazon, and a significant blow to Margrethe Vestager, an executive vice president of the commission who is leading a campaign to curb alleged excesses by some of the world’s largest tech companies, including Amazon, Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google.
Ms. Vestager had already been rebuked once by the same court in a similar case. The General Court overturned her 2016 order that Ireland must recoup some ¤13 billion in taxes from Apple. Ms. Vestager has since appealed that case to the Court of Justice, the EU’s top court.
Ms. Vestager’s tax cases were among her first big salvos against tech companies in her role running EU competition enforcement. She later fined Google three times for alleged abuses of dominance, which the company is appealing. In recent months, she has also filed formal antitrust charges against Amazon and Apple for their treatment of rivals.
Both the Amazon and Apple tax cases are based on a facet of EU law aimed at creating a level playing field for companies across the bloc by forbidding governments from granting companies some types of state aid.
Wednesday’s decision could have a significant impact on Ms. Vestager’s efforts to use those rules to go after what she contends were sweetheart tax deals granted to multinational companies based in a handful of EU countries, including Luxembourg and Ireland. In addition to the Amazon and Apple tax cases, Ms. Vestager ordered tax repayments from companies including Starbucks Corp. , Nike Inc. and Fiat Chrysler, now part of Stellantis NV.
On Wednesday, the General Court is also expected to decide the appeal from Engie SA, a French state-owned energy company, of the commission’s decision to order Luxembourg to recoup roughly ¤120 million in unpaid taxes. Both of Wednesday’s decisions can be appealed to the Court of Justice.
So far Ms. Vestager’s record in tax cases has been mixed. The General Court sided with Apple and Starbucks in their appeals but with Ms. Vestager in the case against Fiat.
In the Apple case, the General Court annulled the tax decision, saying the commission had failed to meet the legal standards in showing that Apple was illegally given special treatment.
The Amazon case is coming to a head as international talks aimed, at least in part, at shifting the taxation of big tech companies are making progress. Those talks, shepherded by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, had been bogged down, leading several countries to impose their own unilateral taxes on big digital companies, including Amazon, over objections from technology trade groups.
Wednesday’s decision concerns a structure Amazon used in Europe as part of a series of transactions known internally inside the company as Project Goldcrest, named for Luxembourg’s national bird.
Under the plan, the company funneled all of its e-commerce sales in the EU through an operating company called Amazon EU SARL. But that company paid a significant royalty every year to an untaxed Luxembourg-registered parent called Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS, reducing the operating company’s taxable income.
In its 2017 decision against Amazon, the commission argued that the company had improperly inflated the royalty to eat up the operating company’s profit. The commission said the way Amazon calculated its tax base in Luxembourg was based on a 2003 tax deal, which was prolonged in 2011. The commission ordered Luxembourg to recoup from Amazon ¤250 million in alleged unpaid taxes over an eight-year period.
Amazon, which had since changed its tax structure, said at the time that it “did not receive any special treatment from Luxembourg and that we paid tax in full accordance with both Luxembourg and international tax law.”
In its appeal, argued in 2020 before the General Court, Amazon said the commission’s decision was riddled with legal and factual errors, contending that its payments were in keeping with international tax principles and that Luxembourg’s tax rulings didn’t confer an advantage on the e-commerce company. Luxembourg also appealed.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service, for its part, had also sought as much as $1.5 billion in additional taxes from Amazon over the same set of transactions, but a U.S. tax court sided with Amazon in 2017, ruling that the IRS had made arbitrary determinations and abused its discretion in several instances. A U.S. appeals court later upheld that decision.
https://www.wsj.com/artic(...)122?mod=hp_lead_pos2
----
Amazon. AMZN 1.05% com Inc. struck a new blow to European Union’s efforts to wring more tax from big tech companies when the bloc’s second highest court sided with the company over a $300 million tax bill.
An EU court in Luxembourg on Wednesday annulled a 2017 decision from the European Commission, the EU’s top antitrust authority, that had ordered Amazon to pay 250 million euros in taxes to Luxembourg, the latest of several big EU tax decisions to be overturned.
The decision is a victory for Amazon, and a significant blow to Margrethe Vestager, an executive vice president of the commission who is leading a campaign to curb alleged excesses by some of the world’s largest tech companies, including Amazon, Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google.
Ms. Vestager had already been rebuked once by the same court in a similar case. The General Court overturned her 2016 order that Ireland must recoup some ¤13 billion in taxes from Apple. Ms. Vestager has since appealed that case to the Court of Justice, the EU’s top court.
Ms. Vestager’s tax cases were among her first big salvos against tech companies in her role running EU competition enforcement. She later fined Google three times for alleged abuses of dominance, which the company is appealing. In recent months, she has also filed formal antitrust charges against Amazon and Apple for their treatment of rivals.
Both the Amazon and Apple tax cases are based on a facet of EU law aimed at creating a level playing field for companies across the bloc by forbidding governments from granting companies some types of state aid.
Wednesday’s decision could have a significant impact on Ms. Vestager’s efforts to use those rules to go after what she contends were sweetheart tax deals granted to multinational companies based in a handful of EU countries, including Luxembourg and Ireland. In addition to the Amazon and Apple tax cases, Ms. Vestager ordered tax repayments from companies including Starbucks Corp. , Nike Inc. and Fiat Chrysler, now part of Stellantis NV.
On Wednesday, the General Court is also expected to decide the appeal from Engie SA, a French state-owned energy company, of the commission’s decision to order Luxembourg to recoup roughly ¤120 million in unpaid taxes. Both of Wednesday’s decisions can be appealed to the Court of Justice.
So far Ms. Vestager’s record in tax cases has been mixed. The General Court sided with Apple and Starbucks in their appeals but with Ms. Vestager in the case against Fiat.
In the Apple case, the General Court annulled the tax decision, saying the commission had failed to meet the legal standards in showing that Apple was illegally given special treatment.
The Amazon case is coming to a head as international talks aimed, at least in part, at shifting the taxation of big tech companies are making progress. Those talks, shepherded by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, had been bogged down, leading several countries to impose their own unilateral taxes on big digital companies, including Amazon, over objections from technology trade groups.
Wednesday’s decision concerns a structure Amazon used in Europe as part of a series of transactions known internally inside the company as Project Goldcrest, named for Luxembourg’s national bird.
Under the plan, the company funneled all of its e-commerce sales in the EU through an operating company called Amazon EU SARL. But that company paid a significant royalty every year to an untaxed Luxembourg-registered parent called Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS, reducing the operating company’s taxable income.
In its 2017 decision against Amazon, the commission argued that the company had improperly inflated the royalty to eat up the operating company’s profit. The commission said the way Amazon calculated its tax base in Luxembourg was based on a 2003 tax deal, which was prolonged in 2011. The commission ordered Luxembourg to recoup from Amazon ¤250 million in alleged unpaid taxes over an eight-year period.
Amazon, which had since changed its tax structure, said at the time that it “did not receive any special treatment from Luxembourg and that we paid tax in full accordance with both Luxembourg and international tax law.”
In its appeal, argued in 2020 before the General Court, Amazon said the commission’s decision was riddled with legal and factual errors, contending that its payments were in keeping with international tax principles and that Luxembourg’s tax rulings didn’t confer an advantage on the e-commerce company. Luxembourg also appealed.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service, for its part, had also sought as much as $1.5 billion in additional taxes from Amazon over the same set of transactions, but a U.S. tax court sided with Amazon in 2017, ruling that the IRS had made arbitrary determinations and abused its discretion in several instances. A U.S. appeals court later upheld that decision.
https://www.wsj.com/artic(...)122?mod=hp_lead_pos2
Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
Far across the moonbeam I know that's who you are
Far across the moonbeam I know that's who you are
Dit, dus. Bestel er regelmatig.quote:
Flauwekul allemaal. Soms heeft Amazon een aantrekkelijker aanbod dan concurrenten (Bol, CoolBlue, Ali, etc.) maar soms ook niet.
"This is the day you will always remember as the day you almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow".
Hey, pssst, amazon.nl = amazon.de.quote:
ik koop via Amazon.de
veel meer aanbod en net zo snel in huis
"This is the day you will always remember as the day you almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow".
quote:Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 13:56 schreef Brainfreeze-Cat het volgende:
Zo erg.
Ziggo is duur. Hun instap abbo kost iets van 50 euro. Daarvoor krijg je 50mbit down / 10mbit up. Je hebt vdsl abbos die hetzelfde verschaffen oor 2 tientjes minder.
Zijn we terug in 1980, of zo?
"This is the day you will always remember as the day you almost caught Captain Jack Sparrow".
Ome Jeff laat ook een aardig bootje bouwen in Alblasserdam
https://www.ad.nl/dordrec(...)n-vriendin~aa36a3cd/
https://www.ad.nl/dordrec(...)n-vriendin~aa36a3cd/
Zouden ze daar ook een toilet in bouwen, of plast ie gewoon in een flesje?quote:Op donderdag 13 mei 2021 12:40 schreef tjoptjop het volgende:
Ome Jeff laat ook een aardig bootje bouwen in Alblasserdam
https://www.ad.nl/dordrec(...)n-vriendin~aa36a3cd/
|
|
