No they are not. Money is always taxed when it changes ownership, as corporations are legal persons, it pays taxes on its profit. When shareholders are given some of that profit via dividends, that money is again changing ownership so it taxed as income to those shareholders. Saying something is double taxed is to misunderstand "when" tax applies. If you don't want company earnings taxed that way, don't be a C corp, but it isn't double taxing.
The advert cost is based on views (I.E. eyeballs, of said French people in France).
But robbing Peter to pay Paul is a valid political decision because you only have be appear to be doing something...
One of the fundamental take-homes of economics is that government spending is not what makes people prosperous. It may help achieve social outcomes, slice the pie more evenly, but not make it bigger. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PP..., and cross reference against tax rates; most of the countries above France have lower tax/government spending. Singapore, with a purchasing-power adjusted per-capita GDP double that of France, has a top tax rate of 20%, and unlike some of the other top countries on that list doesn't have any significant supply of natural resources to fund government spending.
Education, healthcare and law enforcement is what makes people prosperous. How do you propose to have them without taxes?
Or are you saying that French government spends enough already and thus Google should avoid paying taxes if they don't feel like it?
>Or are you saying that French government spends enough already and thus Google should avoid paying taxes if they don't feel like it?
I'm saying Google's paid all the taxes it's legally required to pay and has no moral compulsion to pay any extra.
But yes, I do believe the French government spends enough already. If Singapore, Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Switzerland can achieve better education, health and crime rate outcomes than France although they have less government spending, maybe the French State should work on spending what it has more efficiently rather than just trying to take more and more.
