Jump to content

Google Caved and will pay $74 Million to News


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why is it always the 'general principle' of the left to tax the wealthiest?

(FIFY) Because governments always tilt things in their favour so they don't have pay their fair share. Why do so many average Conservatives and Liberals like yourself keep encouraging this anyway? 

Quote

 

The third and final factor that’s eroding the Canadian economy is the overly complex tax system. It benefits the rich at the expense of average Canadians.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/frank-stronach-canadas-economy-buckling-under-weight-of-growing-debt

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The people we pay taxes to do that.  There's little to nothing we can do about them - of course it doesn't help that people like you seem content with that.

I'd raise them even higher just on general principles.

Dude...you posted " I only want to fund a public broadcaster. I'm not interested in bailing out the private ones.

My initial post and continuing posts are my objection to paying $750+ mill to news media.

You seem to think it is OK.

And you even want to raise them.

What a dork you are LOL You have no principles LOL

30 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Read the posted links in the OP, they are paying a lump sum per year. I guess it is now left wing to actually read something.

He is waiting for it to come up on Google and Facebook LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ironstone said:

No, the media is that bad. And they have failed to adapt with the times. Giving them more money is no guarantee that they will attract more readers/viewers either.

If anything it just delays them having to change their model.

Media could do a lot more to adapt to the modern age - and it's up to them to figure that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Dude...you posted " I only want to fund a public broadcaster. I'm not interested in bailing out the private ones.

My initial post and continuing posts are my objection to paying $750+ mill to news media.

You seem to think it is OK.

And you even want to raise them.

What a dork you are LOL You have no principles LOL

Your initial post had one question, which I answered.

You misunderstand the rest, I'm saying you seem to think its perfectly okay for governments to tilt playing fields in favour of the wealthiest. My desire to tax the snot out of google has nothing to do with media, that's why I said on general principles.

I'm inserting my pet peeve into the discussion because the lack of transparency is the most ubiquitous feature and common thing running through virtually every level of our governance and issues like this.  Especially when it comes to protecting and coddling the interests of the wealthiest people and their companies.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's the DRIVING principle of capitalism though.

It has no place in capitalism.  Capitalism INSISTS that there be overall equivalent exchange. The system collapses without it.

Only socialism believes it can survive long by simply taking from others.

You sure talk like a commie for a 'conservative' :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Capitalism INSISTS that there be overall equivalent exchange. The system collapses without it.

2. Only socialism believes it can survive long by simply taking from others.

3. You sure talk like a commie for a 'conservative' :)

1. 'Equivalent' is subjective.  Capitalism DEMANDED a $13B subsidy in St. Thomas Ontario to create a factory there.  Was that equivalent exchange ?  What's the equivalent exchange for a life-saving drug ?  It's infinite, bounded only by how much they can get.

2. That was Thatcher's take.  Truth is, Socialism and Capitalism both allow for public and private ownership.  The principle of capitalism is that private ownership is better and the principle of socialism is that not always.

3. Sometimes I'm a little predatory, Red-A-Tory... Red Tory...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Your initial post had one question, which I answered.

You misunderstand the rest, I'm saying you seem to think its perfectly okay for governments to tilt playing fields in favour of the wealthiest. My desire to tax the snot out of google has nothing to do with media, that's why I said on general principles.

I'm inserting my pet peeve into the discussion because the lack of transparency is the most ubiquitous feature and common thing running through virtually every level of our governance and issues like this.  Especially when it comes to protecting and coddling the interests of the wealthiest people and their companies.

As I said earlier...go away... you are too scatterbrained to make any sense. LOL

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

(FIFY) Because governments always tilt things in their favour so they don't have pay their fair share. Why do so many average Conservatives and Liberals like yourself keep encouraging this anyway?

If anything the gov't tends to overpay.  Whats a sepecific example of the gov't tilting things in it's favor to pay less than it's fair share an how are you calculating it's fair share in that case?

I suspect you might have trouble answering that :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 'Equivalent' is subjective.  Capitalism DEMANDED a $13B subsidy in St. Thomas Ontario to create a factory there. 

The market determines what 'equivilant' is if it's allowed to do it's job and it always comes down to equivilant value. While value may be subjective to people, whatever people consider value to be the market will adjust to that. 

and no - Capitalism HATES that the gov't is subsidizing a factory.  HATES it.  If the factory was not worth being built for it's own merits then it shoudn't be built.

Having said that most of the subsidy is in tax relief - and that's just promising not to take more of someone else's money for a change.  IT suggests our tax rates are too high for the value the gov't delivers.

Quote

Was that equivalent exchange ? 

No, that's gov't interference to win votes.  Nothing to do with capitalism.

Quote

What's the equivalent exchange for a life-saving drug ?  It's infinite, bounded only by how much they can get.

Yes and no.  That like most things will depend on supply and demand. If people pay an infinite price for it then guaranteed someone else will develop it as well and sell it competatively. Then prices come down. That's how the market works.  It tends to seek to balance supply and demand at an optimal point.

Some regulation is necessary because otherwise it teeter totters a lot but other than that the market is VERY effective in making sure theres  a bigger supply of that drug pretty quick,

 

Quote

3. Sometimes I'm a little predatory, Red-A-Tory... Red Tory...

Reddish orange some might say :)  

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

If anything the gov't tends to overpay.  Whats a sepecific example of the gov't tilting things in it's favor to pay less than it's fair share an how are you calculating it's fair share in that case?

I suspect you might have trouble answering that :)

Me too, that's why I'd leave it up to finance and taxation experts to determine the appropriate share. Without the secrecy of course.

As for examples, I'm quite comfortable taking the word of several commentators and journalists that it's happening. Go do your own research.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Me too, that's why I'd leave it up to finance and taxation experts to determine the appropriate share.

 

All right - then give a specific example where the finance and taxation experts  indicate that they're not paying their fair share.

Quote

As for examples, I'm quite comfortable taking the word of several commentators and journalists that it's happening

Ahhh - so ... NOT experts.  Well - fair enough give an example of where a specific commentator and journalist said that they're not paying their fair share.  Hopefully it's more than just "They're not, honest' and we can see thier thinking.

Quote

Go do your own research.

I do. I already know you're very wrong, but lets see where you're getting your ideas from. Maybe somehow i missed something.  So go ahead and we'll take a look at it. If they exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

All right - then give a specific example where the finance and taxation experts  indicate that they're not paying their fair share.

No, it would be a complete waste because you wouldn't believe a single one I put in front of you. Like I said go do your own research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

1.  Capitalism HATES that the gov't is subsidizing a factory.  HATES it.  If the factory was not worth being built for it's own merits then it shoudn't be built.

2. No, that's gov't interference to win votes.  Nothing to do with capitalism.

3. Some regulation is necessary because otherwise it teeter totters a lot but other than that the market is VERY effective in making sure theres  a bigger supply of that drug pretty quick,

 

1. That just doesn't compute.  They are trying to get revenue any way they can and obviously the shareholders love 13 Billion Dollars.
2. They want profit.
3.  For sure but everybody wants to load the dice... even a little.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Want government out of your life yet you want a tariff on foreign based social media. 

No, that's how other people could think - sarcasm, dude! Like GOP Americans, more tariffs, more tax  breaks, more right-to-work laws. Hidden duties like forcing the rest of the world to use inches, mis-shapen gallons to sell to 400 million customers where L/100lm is just too hard to understand.

Should be obvious to everyone I'm one of those leftists that think the people tell the govt how business behaves and not vice versa.
Other media pays into Cdn content funds and these bozos are playing the "social" media is something totally different line. I'm not so much against Google as it already pays many content creators and associates, who then pay taxes on their earnings. Like I paid tax on the revenue from Google searches and ads on a lot of websites I own. I even have Google News links that filters out world news specific to that specific thing on some sites.
As far as Zuckerberg and some of those other infected tumours on the Internet, the govt is free to tax them into oblivion AFAIC.
I am sorry that now FB has blocked Cdn news, we aren't seeing stories of all those anti-vax goons that were predominantly re-posted everywhere now losing their court cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, herbie said:

Should be obvious to everyone I'm one of those leftists that think the people tell the govt how business behaves and not vice versa.

Notwithstanding genuine national security issue I feel much the same way about the Freedom Of Information Act where the government should be required to ask that something be kept secret from the people instead of the people having to apply to find out what's going on.

That plus no in-camera lobbying of public officials by private individuals/corporations alone should be enough to cause what you've suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But but the Internet is speshull ... we can defund the CBC and Canadians can get real news from Truth Social and we'll save all that money ! Those fools that live in the boonies can damn well pay Elon for Starlink access instead of leeching off the rest of us Cement City dwellers for news and weather reports.

And that FOI idea, then you're denying the govt the same right as Big Business to claim an exorbitant cost to making an employee press keys on a keyboard and actually do their job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Your initial post had one question, which I answered.

You misunderstand the rest, I'm saying you seem to think its perfectly okay for governments to tilt playing fields in favour of the wealthiest. My desire to tax the snot out of google has nothing to do with media, that's why I said on general principles.

I'm inserting my pet peeve into the discussion because the lack of transparency is the most ubiquitous feature and common thing running through virtually every level of our governance and issues like this.  Especially when it comes to protecting and coddling the interests of the wealthiest people and their companies.

The question was "If the media is so bad it cannot even attract advertisers to itself, why should anyone pay, especially my taxes pay? " and you have not answered it.

I do not think "its perfectly okay for governments to tilt playing fields in favour of the wealthiest. " that is my entire point. Paying the media is BS and then coercing Google to pay too is even worse.

You always insert your pet peeve, because you are a one trick pony. Like blackboid and his constant bible thumping.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The question was "If the media is so bad it cannot even attract advertisers to itself, why should anyone pay, especially my taxes pay? " and you have not answered it.

 

Quote

do not think "its perfectly okay for governments to tilt playing fields in favour of the wealthiest. " that is my entire point.

Great, that's good to hear. It's the first step towards thinking about what to do about it.

Quote

You always insert your pet peeve, because you are a one trick pony. Like blackboid and his constant bible thumping.

Actually it's because of the lack of transparency - the means to do anything about your entire point - is just about always the biggest elephant in the room when discussing the point of your point.  I highly doubt Blackbird is concerned about the lack of transparency given all the render unto Caesar blather he subscribes to.
 

Quote

 

Paying the media is BS and then coercing Google to pay too is even worse.

 

And what on Earth does this have to do with making the government transparent? If you're one of these folks who think the PMO and the CBC editorial room are one and the same thing why wouldn't you want to have public observers in there as well?

Forget all the behind the scenes Machiavellian coercion of Google, just tax them like they were you or me into Canada's general revenues.

And in the meantime provide funding for a public broadcaster with public money. The collapse of the private model for journalism is what it is and the need for what they provided is still as big as ever.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, it would be a complete waste because you wouldn't believe a single one I put in front of you. Like I said go do your own research.

ROFLMAO - so you don't have one :)

So you admit there's absolutely no logic or reason or research or experts behind your opinion - you just feel that way and that's it :)  

So much for 'follow the science" :)   well - that brings us back to the original point then. Why do lefties like you always believe in stealing other people's money as the solution to everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That just doesn't compute.  They are trying to get revenue any way they can and obviously the shareholders love 13 Billion Dollars.
 

Well then  upgrade your processor and maybe your ram. 

Capitalism hates it.  The company getting free money from the gov't doesn't. But the capitalist system does.

This is an example of your frequent 'change the channel' debate style i frequently scold you for. You said capitalism, i said capitalism, now suddenly you want to switch it to how the specific corporation feels.  Very disingenuous.

The capitalist model suffers with this kind of stuff and most capitalist thinkers are not happy about corporate subsidy in general, and that's 10 times truer when there's cash and not just tax breaks involved.

Quote

2. They want profit.

They want votes.  And the company will happily take their bribe.

Quote

3.  For sure but everybody wants to load the dice... even a little.

Irrelevant.  The capitalist model does not require it or want it or benefit from it.  So your claim that capitalism "DEEEEMMMAAAANNNNDDDDSSSSS" it is complete hooey :)

Capitalism works best with a free and fair market.  You have some regulation to prevent "dice loading" but pretty minimal

Capitalism is based on the concept of equivalent exchange, and individuals create value or wealth in one way or another and trade it, which spurs innovation and competition and has pulled more people out of poverty than any other model in the history of man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Why do lefties like you always believe in fairer taxation?

Canada is growing more unequal. Social and economic disparities threaten democracy itself as those with the most wealth are able to influence political decision-making, and do so to protect and strengthen their own interests. The wealthiest, who can afford to pay a fair share of our public service costs, enjoy a tax system skewed in their favour.

One of the most unfair things about our tax system is that income from investments is taxed at a much lower rate. And the really rich get most of their income from investments. Over 2/3 of the capital gains exemptions goes to tax filers making over $100,000 a year.

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/411/FINA/WebDoc/WD6079428/411_FINA_IIC_Briefs/CanadiansforTaxFairnessE.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,696
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...