> Foreign businesses providing entirely digital services in France aren't actually receiving any kind of service back from the French government. In other words, this specific tax is just a mechanism for collecting money arbitrarily in exchange for nothing.

You've just ignored all the above posts without addressing them. The other posts make it clear without any counter argument from you that government provides a safe and stable addressable market to do business (and literally the currency).

That argument reduces down to “because a market exists” — is that really a compelling justification for this particular additional tax?

Because the dollars being used to pay for the digital good have already been taxed, probably many times over, by the time the credit card transaction settles and the merchant account is credited at the end of the week (or whenever).

It’s reasonable to question if this particular tax was designed in a way to target specific foreign companies, without a compelling nexus, which would make the tax predatory.

No government, no juicy market. Also > the merchant account is credited at the end of the week (or whenever).

Amazon doesn't pay taxes when they're the merchant.

> The other posts make it clear without any counter argument from you that government provides a safe and stable addressable market to do business (and literally the currency).

How does a government quantify providing "a safe and stable addressable market to do business"? What was the formula used to determine the tax bracket?

Unless we have a clear formula we can reason about, the tax would be arbitrary. Is that not the case?

Moreover, shouldn't the cost of providing "a safe and stable addressable market to do business" be a constant? We know how many French citizens utilize the service, and we should also (somehow) have the overall costs of "keeping the French market afloat". If so, why does the government tax a percentage of the total revenues?

Of course tax is arbitrary. Just look at the chicken tax [1] which despite its name, is a tax on light trucks - unless they're shipped to the US with extra seats which the dealer removes before the truck is sold.

If you're looking for a simple and logically designed system, the international tax system isn't it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

In spanish we have two different words: tasa is what you are describing: a tasa is imposed to pay for a specific thing. Whereas an impuesto is a different thing that is simply put in a common account to pay for everything that is public, in whatever way the government sees fit. No need to link source and destination.

Think of it backwards: if we agree that X level of taxes need to be gathered to maintain common good, the government needs to gather it in the least unjust way possible. Taxing internet giants, to europeans, seem mostly just.

They do use communication networks and, in the case of Amazon, actual roads.