Canada's "Linked Tax" Can't Replace a Real Tax(news.bloombergtax.com)
news.bloombergtax.com
Canada's "Linked Tax" Can't Replace a Real Tax
https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/week-in-insights-canadas-link-tax-cant-replace-a-real-tax
23 comments
I hate Google a lot but I am really not a fan of Europe and Canada's rent seeking bullshit either. They pretend to fight for the people or privacy or something else, etc but really they just want a percentage of Google (or Apple or Msft, etc) revenue. Which always flows to the government or political operators or those they lobby on behalf of.
I'm not sure the Canadian government ever pretended to 'fight for the people'. 'Rights' in Canada are completely different to what most consider a right and mean something very different to rights in the US. The Canadian government model is characterized by 'Peace, order and good governance' - it just so happens that 'good governance' means protectionist policies for this administration.
No mention of Australia?
This deal, given to Google, once again shows how these laws reward large corporations, and hurt small start-ups who can not broker or afford such exemptions. The Canadian government has become just another corrupt gatekeeper, working for entrenched power.
> This deal, given to Google, once again shows how these laws reward large corporations, and hurt small start-ups who can not broker or afford such exemptions.
Can you explain how this hurts small start-ups?
Can you explain how this hurts small start-ups?
I imagine the OP means that Google and other giants already have the lobbying power, funds, and other resources to navigate around political blockades, while start-ups will naturally not have the money, personnel, connections etc. to do the same.
[deleted]
I'm not sure that follows. The bill is specifically targeted at "big tech". Businesses with less than $1 billion in revenue and/or fewer than 20 million active Canadian users are exempt.
Presumably he is talking about news startups. For instance, a news agency with fewer than two employees is not eligible to receive the funds. This makes it difficult to bootstrap a startup news organization while the established players are sitting there collecting free money from the government.
Presumably he is talking about news startups. For instance, a news agency with fewer than two employees is not eligible to receive the funds. This makes it difficult to bootstrap a startup news organization while the established players are sitting there collecting free money from the government.
That still seems like a good deal for Google. Anything on its way to becoming Google-sized has a pitstop to deal with the Canadian government at over 100x less revenue.
Twitter is about an order of magnitude too small to have to worry about this legislation.
Every Canadian federal government eventually bows down to the four big media/telecom companies that collectively control the internet and mobile communications of the entire population. It’s a disgusting situation, but I’m not sure what Canadians can do about it, given that the same media companies feed them their news. And although the CBC is pretty cool, ultimately they are also a political mouthpiece being influenced by the same forces behind the scenes.
Is the US any better? Certainly there is more competition. But Europe is likely the only part of the world that has gotten media and telecom right in a democratic way, providing efficient and cheap internet and mobile access while supporting good journalism.
Is the US any better? Certainly there is more competition. But Europe is likely the only part of the world that has gotten media and telecom right in a democratic way, providing efficient and cheap internet and mobile access while supporting good journalism.
Break them up. You can't be a OTA station provider, a cable/satellite provider, ISP, newspaper and wireless telecom company all in one. It's ridiculous.
I appreciate the need for some sovereign oversight of telecoms for security reasons, but I have never understood why Canada disallows foreign companies to operate a telecom or mobile operator entirely. If Verizon or AT&T started installing cellular infrastructure in Canada, prices would fall overnight with no appreciable loss of security. It’s protectionism pure and simple.
AT&T owned Bell Canada but sold it decades ago. Nortel was a direct descendant of that.
My understanding is that when Verizon tried to enter Canada, Robelus lobbied hard to keep it out.
My understanding is that when Verizon tried to enter Canada, Robelus lobbied hard to keep it out.
You shouldn't be able to simultaneously be a network operator providing wholesale connectivity for retail ISPs, as well as a retail ISP yourself. I'm looking at you, Bell Canada and Rogers.
Don't worry, Pollievre will be Prime Minister soon. He'll disband the CBC and make things worse.
Have any countries got an in action "Link Tax" that Fb or google are adhering to?
Spain implemented one 10 years ago, Google pulled out of Spain, newspapers suffered.
Australia implemented one 2 years ago - the big players did deals with the big newspapers, the small newspapers suffered.
Australia implemented one 2 years ago - the big players did deals with the big newspapers, the small newspapers suffered.
According to the article, Canada.
Not really - in the final agreement it no longer has the form of a link tax.
Now it is simply a payment from Google going mostly to the big telecom companies. Their lobbyists are the ones who wrote the original bill and this was always simply about getting more money for them.
Now it is simply a payment from Google going mostly to the big telecom companies. Their lobbyists are the ones who wrote the original bill and this was always simply about getting more money for them.
What's the difference
A tax on links charges Google or Facebook for every time they send people to other sites (yes, that is the reverse of the normal).
The final agreement involves a simple lump sum, recurring payment from Google to (mostly) Rogers and Bell.
It's a more pure form of shake down, but it's less harmful to the web.
The final agreement involves a simple lump sum, recurring payment from Google to (mostly) Rogers and Bell.
It's a more pure form of shake down, but it's less harmful to the web.
It plays well with the current government's stance of curbing dissent.