Apple, Google Could Face Large Fines Under New UK Digital Consumer Bill

[robbietop]

But more expensive than where and for what?

Come to the United States to buy an iPhone, pay less than in the UK.

YOU WILL PAY YOUR VAT OR BE UPGRADED

Flying to US to get an iPhone X is cheaper than buying in Europe. It's also illegal

HMRC’s rules are clear: you’ve got to pay VAT on your £390-plus US purchases when you fly home, which makes those big savings a lot less appealing

www.theguardian.com

 

[webkit]

Yes, VAT plus higher regulatory costs force EU companies to impose higher prices on consumers to recoup.

It can be some of both but regulations are a factor in all (developed) countries. It’s the high VAT that can really push prices up in Europe. The VAT in the UK is 20% and in some European countries it’s over 25%.

 

[robbietop]

How do you have less competition with less regulation and more innovation?

That doesn’t make sense

He's a socialist that thinks more government, excuse me, monopoly means more choice.

 

[bollman]

People always appreciate someone else paying their way. I don't dispute that in the slightest.

Wooooooowwwww that was something.

Last year, I made $50185 and paid $20756 income tax.

Looking at all available indexes that measure health, happiness, democracy, whatever, the Nordic countries play in a totally different league than the US.

 

[bollman]

I wasn't trying to suggest it was. My comment you originally responded to was:

"But didn't Sweden move a bit away from its previous "socialist" ways starting in the 1990s and has become more pro-capitalism in the last 30 years or so?"

And from what I’ve read, that appears to be the case. Sweden is not as "socialist" as they used to be and has become more pro-capitalism since the 1990s.

Sigh, I give up.
Think what you want to think, luckily, I live here.

 

[Vref]

Wooooooowwwww that was something.

Last year, I made $50185 and paid $20756 income tax.

Looking at all available indexes that measure health, happiness, democracy, whatever, the Nordic countries play in a totally different league than the US.

The Nordic doesn’t make sense outside of the Nordic

You have much less diversity, thus less crime and conflict

You have fewer people, less resources needed, etc

Their model would fail right quick if implemented in a country like the US

 

[bollman]

The Nordic doesn’t make sense outside of the Nordic

You have much less diversity, thus less crime and conflict

You have fewer people, less resources needed, etc

Their model would fail right quick if implemented in a country like the US

Less diversity? In Sweden's third city Malmö, there are 186 nationalities. 20% of people living in Sweden are not born here (around 13% in USA). Only 65% have both parents born in Sweden.
Fewer people yes, but also a lot smaller country.

 

[robbietop]

Less diversity? In Sweden's third city Malmö, there are 186 nationalities. 20% of people living in Sweden are not born here (around 13% in USA). Only 65% have both parents born in Sweden.
Fewer people yes, but also a lot smaller country.

Yo, what does nationality in Sweden's third city have to do with a UK digital consumer bill?

 

[bollman]

Yo, what does nationality in Sweden's third city have to do with a UK digital consumer bill?

Late to the game this discussion hs been going on for 2 days...

 

[AppliedMicro]

EU and US uses about the same % of GNP in healthcare

Do they?

US should be higher by a considerable margin:

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e26f669c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e26f669c-en

 

[robco74]

The US pays far more per capita for healthcare with worse outcomes and lower life expectancy. The insurance companies add little to no value for the amount they skim. While there are stories about people in other countries waiting in line for elective procedures, that glosses over the fact that many Americans can't get in line to begin with. Also, in other countries, your place in line is based on medical need, not ability to pay. If you have a more urgent need, you go to the front of the line. Many Americans have to wait until it gets bad enough to warrant an emergency visit, which clogs up EDs and treatment is more costly. Even if you do get treated, if that treatment involves Rx, then we pay far more for pharmaceuticals than any other nation.

Other countries guarantee basic healthcare for all their citizens using a number of mechanisms including socialized medicine (UK), single payer (Canada) or even private insurance (Germany, Switzerland, Israel). Citizens of those countries keep coverage, even if they lose their jobs. You can keep coverage in the US, provided you can afford COBRA. This is what corporations want however. People afraid to quit their jobs.

Even with all this soshulism, Sweden manages to have several billionaires, and their citizens are happier than Americans. The EU has its share of issues, there are always tradeoffs. Citizens of the UK are finding this out. The US has plenty of taxes, but since they vary from state to state (county, city, etc), they aren't included in pricing, VAT is.

In any case, back to the original issue, having larger fines that actually cause some pain for corporations is a good thing. However regulations also have consequences. It means that companies may decide to delay adding products and features to a given market, or not enter a market at all. Then again, the "People's Republic of California" still has a rather strong economy, even given the "onerous" taxes, regulations, and real estate costs.

 

[gund1234]

if it was a search engine like Google, they could be forced to open up their data to rivals.
Why not ask to share algorithm used to rank pages with competitors.
this is worst than China.

 

[gund1234]

How cute, the all American obsession with socialism. For some Americans even having healthcare free to the point of access is ‘socialist’. Go figure…

it is actually, government spending using tax revenue is socialism, we can argue weather it is better solution or not.

 

[gund1234]

Brit here. Yes this is a dumb move by our Conservative government and I suspect it will backfire spectacularly, for the reasons mentioned by many here.

That said, the ruthless capitalism of the US is not a system I would ever want to see take hold over here. As the saying goes, Capitalism - left to its own devices - is like a runaway train; socialism is the gentle tapping of the brakes. That doesn't excuse every new regulation or every intervention of course - but as a general principle, I think it's a healthy one to live by. As often with matters of human happiness, the key is achieving balance.

sweet spot is in between Capitalism and Socialism, i would prefer closer to Capitalism.
USA is not pure capitalism either.

 

[monstermash]

Wooooooowwwww that was something.

Last year, I made $50185 and paid $20756 income tax.

Looking at all available indexes that measure health, happiness, democracy, whatever, the Nordic countries play in a totally different league than the US.

I wish I paid that little.

 

[AppliedMicro]

it is actually, government spending using tax revenue is socialism

Socialism is the idea of public ownership and regulation of natural resources and capital (means of production). That doesn’t mean that all public/government spending is - or should be called - „socialism“. Such an idea has very little basis or support in social sciences.

 

[Stormz]

sweet spot is in between Capitalism and Socialism, i would prefer closer to Capitalism.
USA is not pure capitalism either.

The USA may not be 100% capitalism but it's still considered extreme by many of us who look in at it from the outside. In fact it looks downright ruthless and I'm surprised you're not all living in a state of permanent fear at the possibility of losing everything through illness. (Your greater average income and quality of life compared with other countries would also add to that fear, I imagine - ie. having further to fall...)

Most other developed nations are essentially free market economies with a dose of socialism thrown in where the profit motive would be unhealthy or where the free market approach doesn't provide the dynamism and choice necessary for improvement. I'm all for a dynamic healthy free market. I run a business. But I also fully support consumer rights, financial regulation, trade restrictions and workers rights. That's not being socialist in a communist sense. That's just being compassionate and civilised.

 

[weckart]

I have stage 4 cancer. I thank god that I live in the US rather than anywhere in Europe or Canada. The time between detection at a (free) screening exam and getting a first scan and seeing a surgeon was a little more than a week. I saw an oncologist a week after that. Chemotherapy started about 3 weeks from initial detection. First surgery was about 4 months after detection, which, given medical considerations of "how it works" was about as soon as possible. Hard to complain about any of that, compared to what I read about the NHS in the UK or Canada and their ridiculous wait times and hoops to see specialists. As for cost, insurance covered most of it. My total out of pocket cost, a little more than a year into it, has been a few thousand bucks, thanks to my private, for-profit insurance company. Big deal. It's way cheaper than having a huge portion of my income confiscated as taxes cover healthcare costs.

And if you lost your job and could no longer afford your private, for-profit insurance premiums and copays/deductions as has happened to thousands of other Americans, what then? This is just an example of devil take the hindmost as long as it isn't me.

 

[monstermash]

And if you lost your job and could no longer afford your private, for-profit insurance premiums and copays/deductions as has happened to thousands of other Americans, what then?

I'd switch to my wife's insurance.

 

[webkit]

And if you lost your job and could no longer afford your private, for-profit insurance premiums and copays/deductions as has happened to thousands of other Americans, what then? This is just an example of devil take the hindmost as long as it isn't me.

The U.S. has the "Affordable Care Act" (including comparable state-based versions) and Medicaid to help people who can't afford their insurance premiums. Depending on one’s income level, these programs offer low cost or even free healthcare plans. For seniors, there's Medicare.

 

[monstermash]

In fact it looks downright ruthless and I'm surprised you're not all living in a state of permanent fear at the possibility of losing everything through illness.

Actually, I'm more afraid of losing everything to taxes than anything else. Taxes are our biggest expense, BY FAR. For 2023, it looks like this for us:

 

[robbietop]

it is actually, government spending using tax revenue is socialism, we can argue weather it is better solution or not.

No, government spending using tax revenue is government spending.

Socialism is a Social Economic Model using government as an equalizer for the lower social economic strata to avoid lopsided economic outcomes where the higher income brackets control the markets and use the poor as both their labor pool and consumer market with impunity.

The government uses the law and tax revenue as a balancing scale to make sure the poorer economic strata can have protections from the possible exploitation of the capital controllers in the upper economic strata.

 

[OneBar]

The US pays far more per capita for healthcare with worse outcomes and lower life expectancy. The insurance companies add little to no value for the amount they skim. While there are stories about people in other countries waiting in line for elective procedures, that glosses over the fact that many Americans can't get in line to begin with. Also, in other countries, your place in line is based on medical need, not ability to pay. If you have a more urgent need, you go to the front of the line. Many Americans have to wait until it gets bad enough to warrant an emergency visit, which clogs up EDs and treatment is more costly. Even if you do get treated, if that treatment involves Rx, then we pay far more for pharmaceuticals than any other nation.

There is no line here. Not sure what you even mean. If I call a doctor to be seen, I don't have to wait months. Ever. For any procedure, for any reason.

Other countries guarantee basic healthcare for all their citizens using a number of mechanisms including socialized medicine (UK), single payer (Canada) or even private insurance (Germany, Switzerland, Israel). Citizens of those countries keep coverage, even if they lose their jobs. You can keep coverage in the US, provided you can afford COBRA. This is what corporations want however. People afraid to quit their jobs.

You are guaranteed basic healthcare here as well. You don't have to have insurance of any kind to be seen. My wife had major surgery while neither of us were insured. Quit listening to propaganda.

In any case, back to the original issue, having larger fines that actually cause some pain for corporations is a good thing. However regulations also have consequences. It means that companies may decide to delay adding products and features to a given market, or not enter a market at all. Then again, the "People's Republic of California" still has a rather strong economy, even given the "onerous" taxes, regulations, and real estate costs.

And yet people think penalizing Apple and Google will somehow cause competition to sprout. Mind boggling. California's economy is "strong" only in that they're heavily subsidized by the federal government. Otherwise they'd collapse under the weight of their incredible debt.

 

[_Spinn_]

i don’t buy into the logic of a global turnover being used for fines compared to just the UK activity seems excessive even it’s only 10%.

I was thinking the same.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Sunak annoucing that he is fining Apple two hundred pounds