Phil Deakins Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Amethyst Jetaime wrote: I read the article and disagree with it. I think how you feel about it depends on your point of view. When LL absorbed the VAT and paid it themselves they were subsidizing the tier for Europeans, hardly fair to people that live in countries without VAT. According to the European Commission Taxes and Custom Union page, VAT is paid for by consumers similar to a sales tax in the US, and is a percentage of the cost of the goods. Here is a quote from that page: (The bolding is mine.) Digital services purchased over the internet are liable to VAT. The rate of VAT applicable to private individuals will depend on the status of the vendor. If the vendor is established in the European Union, he will charge the rate of VAT applicable in his Member State of establishment. If the vendor is not established in the European Union, he will charge VAT at the rate applicable in the Member State of consumption of the service. So the actual laws require LL to charge for the VAT. Some states have sales tax in the US but LL does not pay it for those members, so why should Europeans be subsidized at a rate equal to the taxes they are supposed to be charged for? I agree with 16. If Europeans don't want to pay the tax there is a remedy. Change the law. Like you, I agree with 16. But I'm replying to you because of the quote you provided - specifically the part that you bolded and that I changed the colour of to red. That sentence is official but it does not hold any water whatsoever. No country can make laws that people of other countries have to abide by when they are not in the country that has the laws. That sentence says that companies that have no presence in the EU have to charge their EU customers VAT. It's as plain as the nose on your face that it is total rubbish. (not your face specifically, Amethyst ) When LL started charging their EU customers VAT, they had to do it because they had a presence in the EU - at least 2 offices in the UK and probably offices in one or more other EU countries. I may be mistaken, but I think they no longer have any presence in the EU. I think they closed all their overseas operations. If they are no longer in the EU, they are not obliged to charge EU customers VAT and they now do it by choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 16 wrote: is another thing that sometimes gets missed in countries that got VAT-like laws then the tax code says is only payable once on any goods or service. so is no double-taxation. which is fair so a VAT-registered taxpayer can claim back any VAT that they have paid for goods and services against any VAT that they are due to pay in some tax periods it means that can even get a VAT credit and the tax department actual pays you money + so if a VAT-payable land baron gets their VAT paid by linden then they are still able to claim a VAT credit on the amount that linden paid so lets say: pay $100 include 11.11% VAT. then the baron can claim the VAT as a credit and only pay effective $89. so they get cheaper land than say a USA baron who have to pay the whole $100. and also get the social/society benefits of the taxes paid by linden + is this kinda thing that we can sometimes forget or disremember when we get stuck in our own personal o.m.gs That's not right. A VAT registered person/business can only claim the VAT back if a VAT invoice has been received (an invoice that itemises the actual VAT paid). VAT can't be claimed back if it hasn't been invoiced for and paid. For it to happen, LL would need to provide a VAT invoice to the user, as they do now if the user is VAT registered and requests it. When LL paid the VAT from company funds, no such invoices were offered, issued, or existed, so the user didn't pay any VAT to LL. What LL paid as VAT could not be claimed back by the user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orca Flotta Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 About taxes: I wonder if the country of my origin (Germany) ever received VAT payments from LL, as they are supposed to forward the monies. I guess they stuff it in their pockets and the German taxation department will never know. Heck, why would they know if I'm on SL in the first place? About mainland: I would fall in a deep depression on a standalone island somewhere in the void. I have 2 parcels on mainland: one on ocean so I can go sailing across several hundred watersims anytime I feel like. The second parcel is a small garage at a Linden Route, where I can play with my motorcycles and can go for a tour whenever I fancy. Mainland rocks! Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeclaw Denfu Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Amethyst Jetaime wrote: "So the actual laws require LL to charge for the VAT." Actually - No. LL MUST pay VAT/Salestax, where the law requires it. But there is no law requiring, that a company has to add the Tax on top of the sales price. Simply writing: "Price includes VAT/Salestax, where applicable." is sufficient. Btw, that fact allowed 'No VAT'-deals on cars in the UK. The tax is simply absorbed by the dealer/manufacturer. "Buy me now! You pay no VAT!" <-- That one ran for weeks on british commercial radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Phil Deakins wrote: 16 wrote: is another thing that sometimes gets missed in countries that got VAT-like laws then the tax code says is only payable once on any goods or service. so is no double-taxation. which is fair so a VAT-registered taxpayer can claim back any VAT that they have paid for goods and services against any VAT that they are due to pay in some tax periods it means that can even get a VAT credit and the tax department actual pays you money + so if a VAT-payable land baron gets their VAT paid by linden then they are still able to claim a VAT credit on the amount that linden paid so lets say: pay $100 include 11.11% VAT. then the baron can claim the VAT as a credit and only pay effective $89. so they get cheaper land than say a USA baron who have to pay the whole $100. and also get the social/society benefits of the taxes paid by linden + is this kinda thing that we can sometimes forget or disremember when we get stuck in our own personal o.m.gs That's not right. A VAT registered person/business can only claim the VAT back if a VAT invoice has been received (an invoice that itemises the actual VAT paid). VAT can't be claimed back if it hasn't been invoiced for and paid. For it to happen, LL would need to provide a VAT invoice to the user, as they do now if the user is VAT registered and requests it. When LL paid the VAT from company funds, no such invoices were offered, issued, or existed, so the user didn't pay any VAT to LL. What LL paid as VAT could not be claimed back by the user. yes thats right if i am a VAT registered taxpayer then LL have to provide me with a VAT invoice when i ask. i cant make a claim without it. and if i was a VAT registered EU land baron then i would ask linden dont have to provide a VAT invoice to anyone who doesnt ask for one. VAT registered or not + just on linden having to must collect/pay VAT from services provided to their EU customers. they still have to collect/pay the VAT even if they dont have a physical presence in the EU. they got no choice here is article about why http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/business/worldbusiness/08iht-ecomm_ed3_.html dont think the EU law specfically targetted at companies like linden been changed since. maybe but dont think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeclaw Denfu Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Orca Flotta schrub: "I wonder if the country of my origin (Germany) ever received VAT payments from LL," Da kannst Du sicher sein, die Steuern wurden bezahlt. Daß das bei Inworld-Geschäften eventuell anders aussieht, keine Frage, aber eine Firma dieser Größe kann sich keine Steuerhinterziehung erlauben. ( You can be sure, taxes were paid. That it's possibly different for inworld business, no questions about it, but a company of this size simply cannot afford tax evasion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 ps i just want to make more clear about the VAT invoices if we both are VAT registered and i pay you for a service and can show to tax auditor that i paid the money then even if you dont provide me with a VAT invoice then i can still claim the VAT back on my return. you still have to pay the VAT to the taxman. the tax liability is not dependent on you issuing a actual invoice or not if you are VAT registered edit: this actual is what i meant to say above which i wrote wrong (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltango Vale Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You didn't read the article either. I challenge people to actually read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Deltango Vale wrote: You didn't read the article either. I challenge people to actually read the article. like a lot of other bloggers at the time. the blog argue that LL should effective continue to reduce the price of tiers to EU entrepreneurs and claimed that this would increase the linden gross revenues obtained from EU entrepreneurs the blog not take into accountt that EU entrepreneurs, if they are actual entrepreneurs, can claim back any VAT that is collected off them by linden. offset against the VAT that they should be collecting from their own customers/clients.which they actually should be doing under the EU taxcode. and how many of them were doing that at the time? like none probably it also claim that bc linden did not continue to provide EU entrepreneurs reduced tiers over US customers (by swallow the VAT) then the appreciation of the US dollar against the euro means that SL is unaffordable to EU entrepreneurs this blog was written at the time the euro was at a alltime high against the US$. 1.37 for goodness sake not bad for the EU "entrepreneur" when the US$/euro started out at 1.00 even. what the EU "entrepreneur" had was an effective and steady reduction in the amount of euros actually required for reals to buy tiers over the whole time since SL ever started an effective and steady erosion of the value of EU revenues earned by linden since forever. which got paid its tiers by EU entrepreneurs in US$ bought with euros + that whole poor me argument from EU "entrepreneurs" at the time was rubbish. was like they couldnt count or something. still cant by the sounds of it seems like i specially loooove teh conclusion "There is more to it than money. The once-harmonious relationship between Americans and Europeans has come under increasing stress because of discriminatory pricing. The issue ran like an open sore for months as European entrepreneurs bled out of the game – never to return because of the recent rise of the dollar against European currencies. If SL is to be an American game, no problem, but unless LL reverses its policy of discriminatory pricing, it’s nonsense to pretend Second Life will become a ‘global village’ in the face of massive regional disincentives. A restaurant that turns away customers to save electricity is bad enough, but one that does so by setting higher menu prices for foreigners is unlikely to remain convivial." lol. which part ot 1.00 to 1.37 was stressing them out ??? even more lol. like lolololol was some EU "entrepreneurs" at the time even try argue that linden should keep swallow the VAT to compensate the "entrepreneurs" who cashed out of SL in US$ and had to repatriate them to their own country and "lost" money on doing this when they convert to their own currency the euro was nutso when i heard that one lol + even with all the problems in EU today the US$/euro is at 1.24. more than the VAT even now still. so yeah the EU "entrepreneur" still doing pretty good compare to their US counterparts. well them that can count anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 Deltango Vale wrote: You didn't read the article either. I challenge people to actually read the article. I think that there is no question that the VAT created a disparity. I'm puzzled that anyone would question this. Now I do not live in a country with VAT so whether or not a person can get a refund from their taxing authority I have no idea. If someone can get a full refund of that money, outside of the hassle of the initial out lay, then the disparity does go away. In the U.S. in the State where I live technically I am supposed to declare and pay sales tax on any goods that I purchase on the Internet when I file my taxes. Which now makes me wonder if technically, when I purchase an item on the Market Place if I am required in the fine print of the laws of the state I live in if I could be held liable for sales tax on those items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I don't know anything about VAT. Between the IRS and the CRA, my taxes are plenty complicated enough that I don't aspire to learning how the EU collects revenue. But I did read the article, and it lead me to a very different view of LL's VAT change -- and, I'm sure, very different from what was intended by the article. I now think the change was to level the playing field, not to discriminate against VAT-paying customers. What I suspect was happening was that very large Estate owners (guess who?) were taking advantage of LL's paying of VAT as part of a US tax-avoidance strategy perhaps including the Double Irish / Dutch Sandwich scheme. Even if that's not the case, I'd just mention that countries that don't pay VAT still pay other taxes, often at very much higher rates than VAT-paying countries. By picking up the tab for VAT, LL was discriminating against customers in non-VAT-paying countries because those customers would still have to pay those other taxes at a higher rate than those in VAT-paying countries. And that may have been fine. LL could have continued discriminating in favor of customers in VAT-paying countries, but I don't see the change as discriminating against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted November 25, 2012 Author Share Posted November 25, 2012 Qie Niangao wrote: And that may have been fine. LL could have continued discriminating in favor of customers in VAT-paying countries, but I don't see the change as discriminating against them. All businesses have expenses whether they are for tangible items or intangibles. If we were to take leveling out the playing field to the nth degree, it would get down right crazy. How about we factor in the difference in Cost of Living? Rent where I live is easily half of what rent is in New York City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Legion Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Deltango Vale wrote: You didn't read the article either. I challenge people to actually read the article. I challenge you to accept that people can have a dissenting opinion. Here's your clue: Linden Lab isnt going to alter their prices to make it any easier on those who have to pay VAT - they are not the ones demanding it be paid either. You want to complain? Complain to the right source. Until then? Either accept that people have a differing opinion .... or keep quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltango Vale Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 @ 16, Qie, Perrie, Thank you for reading the article. For those who have not read the article, the facts are these: Linden Lab had a choice. Linden Lab stated clearly that it had a choice Linden Lab made a policy decision. Linden Lab stated clearly that it made a policy decision My argument is that Linden Lab made a bad business decision. My opinion is based on the following philosophy: spend a dollar today, make 10 tomorrow (= save a dollar today, forgo 10 tomorrow)Linden Lab chose to save a dollar today. Linden Lab stated clearly that it wished to save a dollar today. My argument then and now is that Linden Lab did not consider the cost of that decision. My argument was that the long-term cost of that decision would be far greater than the short-term savings. In other words, my argument was that Linden Lab was sacrificing 10 dollars in the future in order to save one dollar today. Can my argument be proven. No. only Linden Lab knew its financial data and projections Linden Lab never explains its strategic decisions (a serious mistake, in my opinion) perhaps there was a strong business case to save a dollar today Regarding RL taxes: few (if any) SL residents qualify for VAT status (which means they have to suck it up) the vast majority of SL residents are mom and pop operations earning (losing) small amounts few (if any) SL residents declare SL income on their RL tax returns (the day LL charges income and capital gains tax is the day SL dies) Regarding exchange rates: if exchange rates are to be factors in pricing then all factors need to be considered in pricing - including PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) - which, as Perrie correctly sees, leads to a very complex equation discriminatory pricing can and does work (many global companies do it), but it's a very tricky operation based on market segmentation in addition to costs Linden Labs' stated philosophy at the time was for universal nominal pricing (which it subsequently abandoned) How shall we evaluate Linden Lab's decision (in hindsight): Linden Lab has now a well-earned reputation for making poor business and management decisions (I would include discriminatory pricing among them) let's remember Avatars United, the CEO shuffle, the firings and resignations, the 30% staff layoffs and the closing of international offices (which means, btw, LL no longer has a presence in the EU) how is SL doing these days? prospering? growing? making headlines as an amazing success story? Right. This post only concerns only one aspect of Linden Lab's larger problems. Many thanks to Perrie for starting this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Deltango Vale wrote: You didn't read the article either. I challenge people to actually read the article. I DID read the entire article, every word. Just because I don't agree that it was a bad thing LL stopped subsidizing Europeans doesn't mean I didn't read it. Your argument is pretty weak if all you can do is claim someone didn't read an article if they disagree with the premise. Besides the person who blogged it is just a regular person like we are that happens to blog. It is her opinion only and she is not an expert. She offered no statistics or independent fact to back up her assertions. You do realize that everything that is written on the internet is not authoritative or even right don't you? LL should NOT subsidize the Europeans by paying their taxes for them. If they don't want to pay the tax and drop their land that is their choice. If LL is going to subsidize Europeans by paying their taxes I want them to pay and equal amount of mine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 16 wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: 16 wrote: is another thing that sometimes gets missed in countries that got VAT-like laws then the tax code says is only payable once on any goods or service. so is no double-taxation. which is fair so a VAT-registered taxpayer can claim back any VAT that they have paid for goods and services against any VAT that they are due to pay in some tax periods it means that can even get a VAT credit and the tax department actual pays you money + so if a VAT-payable land baron gets their VAT paid by linden then they are still able to claim a VAT credit on the amount that linden paid so lets say: pay $100 include 11.11% VAT. then the baron can claim the VAT as a credit and only pay effective $89. so they get cheaper land than say a USA baron who have to pay the whole $100. and also get the social/society benefits of the taxes paid by linden + is this kinda thing that we can sometimes forget or disremember when we get stuck in our own personal o.m.gs That's not right. A VAT registered person/business can only claim the VAT back if a VAT invoice has been received (an invoice that itemises the actual VAT paid). VAT can't be claimed back if it hasn't been invoiced for and paid. For it to happen, LL would need to provide a VAT invoice to the user, as they do now if the user is VAT registered and requests it. When LL paid the VAT from company funds, no such invoices were offered, issued, or existed, so the user didn't pay any VAT to LL. What LL paid as VAT could not be claimed back by the user. yes thats right if i am a VAT registered taxpayer then LL have to provide me with a VAT invoice when i ask. i cant make a claim without it. and if i was a VAT registered EU land baron then i would ask linden dont have to provide a VAT invoice to anyone who doesnt ask for one. VAT registered or not + just on linden having to must collect/pay VAT from services provided to their EU customers. they still have to collect/pay the VAT even if they dont have a physical presence in the EU. they got no choice here is article about why http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/business/worldbusiness/08iht-ecomm_ed3_.html dont think the EU law specfically targetted at companies like linden been changed since. maybe but dont think so I haven't read the N.Y.TImes article but I can state with absolute certainty that no country can make laws that people/businesses in other countires, that have no presence in the country that made the law, have to comply with. So, since LL has no presence in the EU, they do not have to collect VAT from EU residents. They had to collect it when they had a presence in the EU but not any more. They collect it now by choice and not by necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 16 wrote: ps i just want to make more clear about the VAT invoices if we both are VAT registered and i pay you for a service and can show to tax auditor that i paid the money then even if you dont provide me with a VAT invoice then i can still claim the VAT back on my return. you still have to pay the VAT to the taxman. the tax liability is not dependent on you issuing a actual invoice or not if you are VAT registered edit: this actual is what i meant to say above which i wrote wrong (: If I am VAT registered and I collect VAT, I do have to pay that VAT to the taxman (Custom & Excise in the UK) regardless of invoices. That's true. But I was talking about a country making a law (as in my last post). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Deltango Vale wrote: For those who have not read the article, the facts are these: Linden Lab had a choice. Linden Lab stated clearly that it had a choice Linden Lab made a policy decision. Linden Lab stated clearly that it made a policy decision Linden Lab didn't have a choice. They had offices in the EU and, therefore, they had to collect VAT from EU users. It's the law in the EU, where LL had offices at that time, so they had no choice. If the idea that they had a choice came from the article you pointed to, then the writer is wrong and you have been misled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: A very well thought out post. Great points. I concur with: "I stick to mainland for many reasons - and it works for me." Let's hear it for mainlanders! :matte-motes-big-grin: As you said, it works for me as well and others do what's best for them. Maybe it's because I've lived primarily on one mainland sim most of my time in SL and the residents "generally" don't put up hideous builds, but I've greatly enjoyed my homes on the mainland. I never realized on an Estate that one couldn't go very far out into the "ocean. I rented shop space on an Estate sim for a few years and flew out to the edge one day to check out the pretty rocks with waves breaking over them to see who the creator was. It was a total surprise to me to hit an invisible wall. My mainland sim fronts Linden oceans so I'm used to flying out over the ocean and I was like, "HUH????" lol Then I remembered..."Oh yeah...Estate sims aren't connected to anything." There are private estates that have water sims that surround them or are intertwined among the homesteads and regular sims. I rented on one for a time that had over 110 sims you could sail on. We'd still be there if not for the fact that we got our own sim. People that rent on private estates that are stand alone islands like it that way. You get more privacy plus an ocean view and can terraform your land to allow for water entry or not as you choose. Just as I posted the above, I thought about connected sims like Caledon and many others and almost edited to add that bit. As far as my hitting the edge of the single sim, it just stunned me for a moment with one of those, "What the heck?" moments before I remembered. I enjoy Estate sims as well but like Pussycat said, for me, mainland has been good. I do think I was fortunate to find a great mainland sim early in my SL. I also agree with Melita about charging tier per sqm or something similar. That is the main reason I discontinued owning mainland and am now renting on the same sim for $10.00 USD less than if I owned that parcel which includes not paying for premium membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czari Zenovka Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Orca Flotta wrote: About mainland: I would fall in a deep depression on a standalone island somewhere in the void. I have 2 parcels on mainland: one on ocean so I can go sailing across several hundred watersims anytime I feel like. The second parcel is a small garage at a Linden Route, where I can play with my motorcycles and can go for a tour whenever I fancy. Mainland rocks! Period. Is there a mainland group in world? Probably so but if not we should start one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Deltango Vale wrote: @ 16, Qie, Perrie, Thank you for reading the article. For those who have not read the article, the facts are these: Linden Lab had a choice. Linden Lab stated clearly that it had a choice Linden Lab made a policy decision. Linden Lab stated clearly that it made a policy decision My argument is that Linden Lab made a bad business decision. My opinion is based on the following philosophy: spend a dollar today, make 10 tomorrow (= save a dollar today, forgo 10 tomorrow)Linden Lab chose to save a dollar today. Linden Lab stated clearly that it wished to save a dollar today. My argument then and now is that Linden Lab did not consider the cost of that decision. My argument was that the long-term cost of that decision would be far greater than the short-term savings. In other words, my argument was that Linden Lab was sacrificing 10 dollars in the future in order to save one dollar today. Can my argument be proven. No. only Linden Lab knew its financial data and projections Linden Lab never explains its strategic decisions (a serious mistake, in my opinion) perhaps there was a strong business case to save a dollar today Regarding RL taxes: few (if any) SL residents qualify for VAT status (which means they have to suck it up) the vast majority of SL residents are mom and pop operations earning (losing) small amounts few (if any) SL residents declare SL income on their RL tax returns (the day LL charges income and capital gains tax is the day SL dies) Regarding exchange rates: if exchange rates are to be factors in pricing then all factors need to be considered in pricing - including PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) - which, as Perrie correctly sees, leads to a very complex equation discriminatory pricing can and does work (many global companies do it), but it's a very tricky operation based on market segmentation in addition to costs Linden Labs' stated philosophy at the time was for universal nominal pricing (which it subsequently abandoned) How shall we evaluate Linden Lab's decision (in hindsight): Linden Lab has now a well-earned reputation for making poor business and management decisions (I would include discriminatory pricing among them) let's remember Avatars United, the CEO shuffle, the firings and resignations, the 30% staff layoffs and the closing of international offices (which means, btw, LL no longer has a presence in the EU) how is SL doing these days? prospering? growing? making headlines as an amazing success story? Right. This post only concerns only one aspect of Linden Lab's larger problems. Many thanks to Perrie for starting this thread. The ONLY discrimination going on was against residents who lived in places without VAT that had to pay more in effect than Europeans when LL paid the tax. I grant that LL makes bad decisions sometimes, but this is not one of them. This was a decision in fairness to other residents. I'm betting that most residents other than Europeans didn't know about this or there would have been a lot more people protesting the discrimination against them in the form of having to pay a higher tier. In effect, those that paid tier where taxes were not paid on their behalf were helping LL subsidize a select group of residents. BTW none of my European friends left SL as a result of this decision or dropped their land. Even the biggest estate owners didn't. A few small estates may have but overall I don't think it hurt LL's bottom line or the popularity of SL but so much. The lack of good customer service, griefing control and grid problems is the main cause of people leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Czari Zenovka wrote: Orca Flotta wrote: About mainland: I would fall in a deep depression on a standalone island somewhere in the void. I have 2 parcels on mainland: one on ocean so I can go sailing across several hundred watersims anytime I feel like. The second parcel is a small garage at a Linden Route, where I can play with my motorcycles and can go for a tour whenever I fancy. Mainland rocks! Period. Is there a mainland group in world? Probably so but if not we should start one. I think the group would be so large as to be unmanagable, but the question kind of got to me. I doubt I'd fall into a deep depression but I agree with the rest of Orca's post. Somehow being on mainland just makes me feel like I am more anchored—for want of a better word—in Second Life. I don't have a club, I don't have a store, I don't have anything here other than myself. But I can walk out the front door (or jump off the deck as usual) and be facing a Linden Road. It makes me feel connected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciaran Laval Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 16 wrote: the blog not take into accountt that EU entrepreneurs, if they are actual entrepreneurs, can claim back any VAT that is collected off them by linden. offset against the VAT that they should be collecting from their own customers/clients.which they actually should be doing under the EU taxcode. and how many of them were doing that at the time? like none probably. VAT, in the UK anyway, would only be due on service charges outside of Second Life, such as Paypal payments. Linden dollar transactions are not within the scope of VAT, which would mean someone who only deals in Linden Dollar transactions is at the end of the VAT cycle, meaning they pay it, there's nowt to offset.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltango Vale Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Phil, read the article. All the quotes, links and math are in the article (and followup comment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 on discriminatory tax regime/collecting + where i live we got a VAT-like tax. GST if i am a small entrepreneur (like my entreprenerial revenue does not meet the min threshold) then i am not required to be registered for GST. each country that have GST/VAT-like taxes has dif min levels for this bc i am legal not GST-registered then i am not obliged to collect GST from my customers. nor may i bc i am not GST-registered (registration makes me a tax collection agent for the State) so. if i make an invoice for $100 for a service i sell to you, on which i cannot include/add the GST then you have to pay me $100 which i keep all off and declare as revenue subject to income tax but if you are GST-registered (even if i am not) then you can claim back $16.60 (about?) of the $100 you paid me on your GST return even tho i am not legal able to provide you with a GST invoice. is the same in every other VAT/GST country pretty much how this works has been a whole lot of court cases about this all round the world. and the Tax depts have lost them all pretty much everytime bc of the principle/ that you cant have a tax code that says you have to collect taxes on every income dollar and not be able to claim a tax credit on every expenditure that would otherwise be claimable (actual paid or not) given that the tax code cant be discriminatory except by the express will of Parliament/Congress encoded in specific exempting legislation. is a judcial argument this one and the Courts all over always uphold these kinda principles whenever is tested + so anyways, the nett effect is. no GST/VAT is ever paid to the taxman on the $100. and you get to keep the actual $16.60 (about?) that you get off me. quite often when people who not know this go waahhh!!! when they hear about it. but is judicial reasons for it like i say already so next (: therefore bc of this i can take your rationale and make an argument that if we both buy the same amount of tiers off linden then linden should give me a discount (and not you) so that is more equal. like more fair for me bc we not just talking now about my bi-relationship with linden all by itself. we talking about the tri-relationship between you me and linden and how come i am being disadvantaged in this by a 4th party - the taxman in my own country is really woolly this kind of argument tho. it happens all the time when people demand a "positive" discrimination in their favour and we always end up with total distortions in the tax code and wider economy. a demand driven/motivated by the inherent distortionary effect of the tax code itself and its actual application in practice + the valid part of your argument is that reduction in tiers may lead to increase revenues for linden through more people in total buying tiers is a straight fiscal argument is this so i not have any problem when is argued on this basis but when is presented as a positive discrimination to somehow compensate for a distortion created by the tax code (which is your actual argument) then is pretty much rubbish just say like to say that you are not rubbish personally. just the argument you are making Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now