The European Union Comes Up With aWay to Censor You and Make Money at the Same Time

While in the US some people have discovered that running a YouTube Channel can get you in trouble with the law. One many found himself in Georgia with being charged with running a business without a license even though he was not selling anything just offering his opinion. Of course, there are two licensing options provided by YouTube for content uploaded to its service and suggest an additional third option for users wanting more flexibility for their content and their rules and regulations. The world of information is changing rapidly. There is now radio and TV stations available on the internet expanding the availability of audiovisual content overall. But such broadcasters are regulated and require a license. The traditional reasons for requiring regulation/intervention in broadcast, cable system and satellite system markets, was the scarcity of frequencies, diversity, and localism. With the advent of the internet, certainly scarcity of available frequencies does not apply. These reasons are still used to justify governments’ intervention in media markets which were never supposed to be about stopping free speech. Moreover, media convergence has certainly blurred traditional distinctions between media providers in the various mediums now available. Print media now also offers on-demand videos and other audiovisual content on their websites blurring the old traditional distinction between print, radio, and TV. Likewise, TV broadcasters and radio stations also publish newspaper-like content on their websites. There is the growing problem that regulation seems to have been left in the Dark Ages. Regulators still operate under the license regimes and impose their ownership limits to prevent monopolies. They also impose behavioral restraints and they have rules governing things that they must carry. Naturally, channel position privileges are also decided by regulators. Rupert Murdock had to be approved to buy media companies in the USA. The FCC once upon a time had the Fairness Doctrine, but abandoning that has produced Fake News where broadcasters no longer have to provide a balance to both sides. This has ushered in the age of Propaganda. These regulations have been deemed as NECESSARY yet remain highly disputed among scholars. Such intervention into media has always been dancing on the edge of infringements of First Amendment rights of Free Speech. However, with the new age of the internet, the old interventionist tools really no longer apply as markets converge. Therein lies the problem. Regulators are feeling that they have lost power and politicians have been using the whole Russian conspiracy as a justification to expand regulation that may completely kill free speech. The jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is limited to broadcast, cable and satellite – not the internet or print media. It lacks the power to regulate the audiovisual media industry as a whole. With the rise of the internet, people can create their own broadcast companies like InfoWars. I have reported that the new European regulations are actually having an impact globally. Alex Jones’ InfoWars has been banned by Apple’s decision to remove five podcasts by Jones and his Infowars website. Other companies have rushed to join including Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify. The general reason is Jones’s podcasts are viewed as “hate content” which can subject them to heavy fines in Europe. In the USA, the FCC has been weakened with its ability to regulate. It can no longer prevent the emergence of a new market structure in audiovisual media. On December 11, 2007, the European Union adopted an overhauled regulatory framework on audiovisual media, which entered into force on December 19, 2007. The new framework sharply contrasts the FCC’s approach. Not only does the European Union regulate ALL audiovisual media providers, regardless of whether they use airwaves or the internet to convey their content, but it ALSO regulates on-demand offers of audiovisual content. Now the EU has imposed regulation of on-demand offers and that actually opens the door for member states to regulate services like YouTube or Tudou (The China clone in Shanghai). It is the European Union’s intention to cover only mass media which impacts on a significant proportion of the public, or so they say. Barack Obama’ used the internet to win the election publishing his speeches on YouTube. They have alleged that the Russians helped Trump get elected also by using the internet. The internet has created the ability to have a broadcaster-like service and this is driving the local regulators in Europe absolutely insane. They do not have a First Amendment so if the speech content is against what they want to see in the public, they can just shut it down constitutionally applying hate-speech being their favorite label. This actually forced these internet companies to shut-down InfoWars. They fines and damages can be completely insane in Europe. Germany has already taken steps that the FCC and the EU are looking at very closely. The German regulator says Twitch and YouTube streams are considered broadcasts, must apply for a broadcasting license. Germany has already taken that step requiring a radio broadcast license for Twitch. Germany under Merkel is deeply concerned about her negative press. They are starting to regulate and shut down free speech under the pretend of hate speech to protect the public. Germany is deliberately applying regulations that define a broadcaster to YouTube channels. The fee they want runs €1,000 to €10,000 or even more depending upon the viewership. The politicians did not make a new law, it is the regulator applying it and they suddenly discovered that a YouTube Channel is like a TV station. So everyone is watching to see if they get away with it. The EU’s regulation on the internet has been a smashing success and it has forced changes in the USA. The EU can impose regulations to impose must-carry obligations for local channels on worldwide operating TV gateways on the internet or block them from Europe. What has been emerging in Europe is already becoming a major impediment to new forms of audiovisual media and to new ways of producing and conveying content. It is forcing people outside of Europe to comply with foreign laws or face huge fines that would be ruinous in Europe. The FCC, as well as the Supreme Court, are still locked into the old reasons for regulation. The European Union’s approach seems to intentionally force convergence to their desires upon the entire world. They are deliberately trying to fundamentally change the way broadcast-like services are provided. Already, there are whispers in Brussels that to even have a YouTube Channel will require more than a YouTube license from them. The thinking in Brussels is turning to consider a YouTube Channel to have a broadcaster license. Meanwhile, the FCC sits quietly waiting for Brussels to make the first move. Our sources are deep on this issue. We shall see how far they rise to the surface. We are looking at the most direct assault upon the free speech which is all part of the cycle when governments are fighting to keep power. If every country adopts this same policy of Germany, they will succeed in completely eliminating free speech which seems to be the real objective here. If someone wanted to do a YouTube Channel in the EU and had to pay €10,000 annually to 28 members, that would be €280,000 per year. That should shut down just about any independent voices. Yet once again, the fact that Germany gets to do this demonstrates why the EU is a failure when any state can act arbitrarily.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/eu-considering-requiring-a-broadcaster-license-to-have-youtube-

Government is Always Exempt from the Laws that Apply to Everyone Else | Armstrong Economics

COMMENT: Thank you for opening my eyes on the hunt for money by cash-starved governments! My wife was a registered nurse in India and is attempting to get her RN license in California. She applied for the nursing license exam in August 2015, and the fee was the same for international and California graduates ($150). She’s taking a review class now with other international graduates and they told her the fee is now $750! There are already a lot of registered nurses from foreign countries in California. I doubt the state is trying to discourage foreign accredited nurses but rather is trying to get as much money as they can. The fee for graduates from California increased by 100% to $300. I’m amazed the state is getting away with this. E REPLY: A private company cannot raise the price of something after it is agreed upon. This is the problem with governments. They are exempt from all the same laws and ethics that apply privately. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme as are most pension funds. They require fresh money to keep coming in to fund past debt. When the World Trade Center was built, it was the Port Authority. This was excess money they made from tolls. Because it was a government entity, they saved money and did not put in sprinklers in the stairwells. A private contractor would have gone to jail for life. There are always two standards for private v public. Even when Congress passed Obamacare, they exempted themselves.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/government-is-always-exempt-from-the-same-laws-that-apply-to-everyone-else/

The real oppressors

The Hunt for Taxes In Spain | Armstrong Economics

COMMENT: Dear Marty, Hope you are doing great. Recently you may have heard Cristiano Ronaldo, the best football (what you guys wrongfully call soccer 😉 ) player in the world has left Spain’s Real Madrid and signed for Italian Juventus. There are many reasons behind this which involve broken promises of a better salary and especially lack of support on his situation with the Spanish tax department which has been very aggressive on him and other football players lately; now it has surfaced he is even planning to cancel a construction of a hotel of his own in Madrid, sources point to the tax witch hunt as the main reason for this decision as well. This way Spanish La Liga has lost one of the two best players in the world who happened to each play for one of the two biggest clubs in Spain, now the most important football match in the world has lost a lot of appealing as well. It’s incredible how governments destroy all good things in their despair to find money, not realizing they only dig themselves deeper into trouble. Btw, Cristiano sold about 520,000 Juventus jerseys with his name only on his first day at his new club making around 52 million Euro which is half what Juventus paid for his transfer and way more than the extra 18,8 million the Spanish government is demanding from his pockets, if you add what the guy generated in publicity and TV audience one doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that running him out of Spain was not a wise business decision. JC REPLY: Those in government NEVER make wise business decisions. All they ever do is envy people in the private sector. You generally have two types of people who work in the bureaucracy (excluding Department of Justice). They tend to be there because they are afraid of risk and seek government jobs because there is ZERO chance of getting fired. The other person is there to punish the world for their own lack of talent. Far too often they will hunt down people with money to abuse them as much as possible as a pay-back to society for their own failures. The Department of Justice is either a parking place for people who CANNOT find a real job in the REAL WORLD, or they are there to win prosecutions and then pretend to be selling their experience to get those big paying jobs. They are either looking for such a job or they enter that field and then become a politician. As Nigel Farage said: Politicians are dominated by lawyers, but they are the failed lawyers.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-hunt-for-taxes-in-spain/

The Supreme Court Just Destroyed the Economy in the Hunt for Taxes | Armstrong Economics

The Supreme Court in SOUTH DAKOTA v. WAYFAIR, INC, just handed down the most devastating and unconstitutional rule perhaps in American history in a 5-4 ruling that we will look back upon as the straw that broke the back of the economy. The Supreme Court has totally rejected EVERYTHING that the United States was built upon – No Taxation Without Representation. Instead of the greed of states being confined to their own citizens, the Supreme Court has ruled that if you are not a citizen of that state, the state still has jurisdiction to compel you to collect taxes as an economic slave WITHOUT ANY RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED IN THAT STATE to oppose such legislation. This is exactly what the American Revolution was all about. The English Parliament would pass legislation that compelled Colonists to pay taxes yet they were NOT represented in the English Parliament to object. This is the most fundamentally UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ant-Democratic decision EVER handed down by the Supreme Court all because of the Hunt for Money by the States. There will be states that now simply go nuts and I will have to decline doing business in certain states for the risks will be far too great and the cost of compliance will only make it disproportionate per state to conduct business. If you fail to collect sales taxes, they will hit you with penalties and interest rates in the 20%+ level that will far exceed the gross sales in those states. This will simply make it IMPOSSIBLE to conduct business nationwide. The only way around this insane ruling will be for people to “DONATE” to an organization and receive access to research for “FREE” just as the two little girls selling lemonade hade to when the police said they could not sell lemonade in front of their house. The Texas sisters Andria, 8, and Zoey Green, 7, wanted to raise about $100 to take their dad to the Splash Kingdom as a Father’s Day present, so they set up a traditional neighborhood lemonade stand. After they made about $25 profit, the nasty insane Overton police showed up and shut the lemonade stand down because the Green sisters did not have a “Peddler’s Permit,” which comes with a $150 fee. The police have simply become the destroyers of society and no longer protect the society – they have transformed into IRS agents with guns and wheels, and far too many are ignorant of what role they now play in society. Nevertheless, in the true spirit of American resistance to No Taxation Without Representation, the girls reopened, giving out free lemonade with tips being optional. That screwed the police. There is the future of society fighting back against those who are destroying all our freedoms. South Dakota v Wayfair demonstrates the hunt for taxes that I have been warning will tear the United States apart and will destroy the economy going forward contributing to the shift in the Financial Capital of the World to China. So if you wanted a REASON for that shift, you now just received it from the Supreme Court. Should also know that Congress NEVER applied the income tax to worldwide income. It was the Supreme Court which also ruled that they never made an explicit exception, so the IRS can collect it worldwide. ONLY America and Japan impose taxation on income earned globally. Today, the Supreme Court has once again delivered a devastating blow to the US economy long-term. The Supreme Court wrote: “South Dakota, like many States, taxes the retail sales of goods and services in the State. Sellers are required to collect and remit the tax to the State, but if they do not then in-state consumers are responsible for paying a use tax at the same rate. Under National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U. S. 753, and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, South Dakota may not require a business that has no physical presence in the State to collect its sales tax. Consumer compliance rates are notoriously low, however, and it is estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause South Dakota to lose between $48 and $58 million annually. Concerned about the erosion of its sales tax base and corresponding loss of critical funding for state and local services, the South Dakota Legislature enacted a law requiring out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax “as if the seller had a physical presence in the State.” The Act covers only sellers that, on an annual basis, deliver more than $100,000 of goods or services into the State or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods or services into the State. Respondents, top online retailers with no employees or real estate in South Dakota, each meet the Act’s minimum sales or transactions requirement, but do not collect the State’s sales tax. South Dakota filed suit in state court, seeking a declaration that the Act’s requirements are valid and applicable to respondents and an injunction requiring respondents to register for licenses to collect and remit the sales tax. Respondents sought summary judgment, arguing that the Act is unconstitutional. The trial court granted their motion. The State Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that Quill is controlling precedent.” The Supreme Court, therefore, OVERRULED two previous decisions in order to help state hunt down taxes. “Because the physical presence rule of Quill is unsound and incorrect, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U. S. 753, are overruled.” The decision was written by Justice Kennedy was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Alito. A concurring opinion was delivered by Justice Thomas joined by Justice Gorsuch. The dissenting opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, which was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Clearly, this was not a decision that was simply down political party lines. President Reagan nominated Kennedy to the Supreme Court and he has ruled in favor of government most of the time when it comes to taxes. President George W. Bush (Junior) appointed Chief Justice Roberts in 2005 after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Chief Justice Roberts in writing the dissent to which four justices agreed to wholeheartedly, explained the core of the decision and why I find this as the straw that will indeed break the bank of the economy. He wrote: “The Court argues in favor of overturning that decision because the “Internet’s prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy.” Ante, at 18. But that is the very reason I oppose discarding the physical-presence rule. Ecommerce has grown into a significant and vibrant part of our national economy against the backdrop of established rules, including the physical-presence rule. Any alteration to those rules with the potential to disrupt the development of such a critical segment of the economy should be undertaken by Congress. The Court should not act on this important question of current economic policy, solely to expiate a mistake it made over 50 years ago.” If Congress FAILS to overrule this with clear legislation, this will indeed be the last nail in the coffin of ECommerce going forward. The cost of compliance for small business will be disproportionate to the business conducted. EVERY small business will now have to go to lawyers and accounts and they will have to review the laws of each and every state. Such costs are fine for Amazon, but every state will now write its own legislation which is NEVER tested before being enforced placing the burden ALWAYS upon the citizen. If they cannot afford to defend themselve4s, they are forced out of business. The greed of the states knows no rational sense or conscience. There is no negotiation with a government. They are simply ruthless and could care less who they destroy and how many people will be thrown out and lose their jobs. If states now tax downloads, which Florida does not, then just to let everyone know, we may simply be forced based upon this decision to leave the United States in order to even do business. You cannot treat everyone the same. Looks like getting a PO Box in Delaware may come in handy. Businesses now have to hire a company to keep track of every state and there go more overhead costs so the consumer will have to pay more plus the taxes. When Congress passed FATCA the cost of compliance to say you are not dealing with Americans by foreign companies has exceeded $1 billion annually. This can be the worse decision of all time! It will seriously reduce ECommerce and slow economic growth entirely because 50 st6ates are greedy, broke, and all act in their own way. (download the decision below while it is still tax-free for now) South Dakota v Wayfair
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-supreme-court-just-destroyed-the-economy-in-the-hunt-for-taxes/

The America I grew up in is slowly disappearing

West Coast & the Insane Socialistic Hunt for Taxes | Armstrong Economics

I have been warning that we are in a battle to the death against the socialists. The West Coast is becoming the place to leave as fast as you possibly can for any business. There are already companies starting to migrate from Silicon Valley to Texas. The migration has become. More and more Tech firms are setting up shop in Austin Texas. We are starting to see Tampa also perk-up. The advantages of both places have been that they “fit” the non-establishment atmosphere. The socialists in the West are just going nuts. You have Seattle taxing $275 per employee to shelter “homeless” of which many are aliens. We have Portland all upset over the “inequality” of income so they want to bring the “rich” down to the same level of the “poor” to make it fair rather than raise the poor. Strange how they always get that one backward. Lawmakers in Portland, Oregon have decided to attack the rich by imposing a business-tax on firms with extreme CEO-to-worker pay ratios: 10% Tax on firms with a CEO-to-Worker ratio over 100-to-1; and a 25% Tax on firms with a CEO-to-Worker ratio over 250-to-1. So in other words, if a company is in trouble and brings in someone to straighten out the firm and he is paid 250x that of an average worker, then they want to tax the firm 25%. The West Coast is just going nuts. As the funding for all their socialistic dreams leaves huge deficits, they are turning to “justify” raising taxes pretending they are fighting a new moral cause. When I was restructuring companies and helping those who wanted to establish a base inside the EU for the coming Euro, those firms who needed skilled labor in manufacturing I placed in Britain. If they needed the best tax deal and were not concerned about a manufacturing base, I placed them in Ireland. That is how I came to know Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She wanted to meet the guy who was sending all these companies into Britain. There was no a single company I placed in France because the unions were crazy. On a strike, the actually kidnapped the CEO and his family until they got their demands. The German taxation was nuts. The taxes a company had to “contribute” to Employees benefits was 40% more than Britain. So you see, I was paid to do the best deal for my clients. That was my job. Today, I would NOT place any company in California, Oregon, or Washington. My recommendation is to get out before they impose an EXIT TAX like New Jersey.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/west-coast-the-insane-socialistic-hunt-for-taxes/