Maybe it is time to revisit the whole concept of progressiveness in taxes.

Sir, John Gapper, perhaps solely wearing his hat of a writer, basically proposes creating a publisher monopoly in order to counter the growing strength of a distribution monopoly such as Amazon, “Publisher must become giants to take on Amazon”, May 29.

As a reader, I am not certain I want to be squeezed by those who clearly would then have an interest coming into some agreements that might not benefit me, though the truth is that technological advances married to the reach-out of globalization, do seems definitively to be leading us down that path.

And what can we do to keep alive our alternatives? I have not given too much thought on how it could be implemented but I think that the introduction of tax-rate progressiveness, for corporate profits and or dividends, based on market shares, could be something worthwhile to explore.

Why for instance should “The Shop Around the Corner” have to face the same tax structure as Amazon?

And of course, in the same vein, why should a company that fights naked and unprotected in the markets face the same tax structure as one that operates under the protection of intellectual property rights?

Stop subsidizing status-quo and taxing development.

Sir Mario Monti in “Watchdogs of the world, unite!” July 29, makes a powerful case for the need of strong antitrust enforcement to keep market competition alive, capitalize on “creative destruction” and minimize “destructive conservation”.

In the same vein I would also request the competition agencies to look into the anti-competition implications imbedded in the capital requirements for banks, by which borrowers who can dress themselves up as having a “low default risk”, when compared to the “higher default risks”, are subsidized by the cost savings that are produced by some extremely low capital requirements. That signifies a subsidy for status-quo (the known) and a tax on development (the unknown). This exaggerated conservative risk-adverseness has already taken us over the cliff of the subprime mortgages… with nothing to show for it.

In search of answers on search engines

Sir, the discussion around Google issues as in Denise Kingsmill’s “Google’s market power warrants an inquiry” June 13 and Maija Palmer’s FT front page report that same date with respect to the “European fight over storage of personal data” naturally befuddles many of us.

Clearly a search engine should mostly be valued in terms of the services it offers to the searchers but in this case it is actually the searchers that become the searched and this leads to some very strange signalling effects. In fact I would not mind if Google was allotted, by the system, to perform a maximum of free searches, let us say 20 per cent of all the searches on the web during the last 24 hours, and thereafter, in order for a Google search to be allowed, a searcher would have to demonstrate Google’s search worth, by being willing to pay a substantial amount to Google for their service.

Also, with respect to privacy issues, we suddenly read about a possible compromise that would have Google cookies expire after only 18 months instead of 30 years, as if privacy had anything to do with time. On the contrary, if privacy was indeed the case, then one would perhaps be able argue that it is only after 30 years that Google could be allowed to use any personal data.

PS. We might need a Global Web Constitution