Slashdot Mirror


UK Announces 'Google Tax'

mrspoonsi points out that the UK has announced a "Google tax" on corporations that send a significant portion of their profits overseas to avoid local taxation. Any "economic activity" that is pushed to another country would face a 25% tax. George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer [said], "We will make sure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. We will introduce a 25% tax on profits from multinationals here in the UK which they artificially shift out of the UK. Today we're putting a stop to it. It's unfair to British people." ... [C]orporate taxes are still low, because the system does not tax sales, it taxes profits. And those profits are fiendishly difficult to pin down. Intellectual property payments to holding companies, the movement of sales activity to lower tax jurisdictions and the cost of licensing fees to holding companies all confuse the picture and allow firms with very mobile business models (such as in the technology sector) to be highly tax efficient.

23 of 602 comments (clear)

  1. Great by Roodvlees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sadly it has to be done this way. Because countries refuse to stop giving the ridiculous tax benefits.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    1. Re:Great by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because countries refuse to stop giving the ridiculous tax benefits.

      Well there you have it. Exactly what is wrong with the left. A lower tax rate is considered a "benefit" as if the government is tossing a cookie out and patting the corporate (or individual) dog on the head and saying "good boy!"

      The government has no inherent natural right to take money from anyone.

      The far better way to view it is "companies are shifting assets and income out of our country because of the ridiculous tax penalties here."

    2. Re:Great by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The companies profit because of the stable economies and societies countries create through spending the tax the countries have collected. Why shouldn't governments try to recoup some of this? Google can choose to not do business in the affected countries if they want.

    3. Re:Great by visualight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And you have no inherent natural right to electricity, plumbing, roads, safety from murder/rape/robbery, etc. Society gives that to you in EXCHANGE for your taxes.

      Next, try to separate Society from Government to continue your argument. Then I'll just call you you a Liar, because you do actually understand the manipulation you (will) be making.

      Or, you have another, more fair, method that results in every member of Society contributing to the whole, let's hear it. But if you think you should be allowed to live here and profit from our infrastructure and then not pay for it you can get the fuck out you communist free loader.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    4. Re:Great by deKernel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You make it sound like they don't recoup any money which they do. The question is how much is fair.

    5. Re:Great by Roodvlees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly what is wrong with the left.

      The only where it matters who says it is when you are wrong and unable to argue the point.

      A lower tax rate is considered a "benefit" as if the government is tossing a cookie out and patting the corporate (or individual) dog on the head and saying "good boy!"

      When that tax rate is lower than the one people have to pay over their income and it's only paid over the profit the company makes (unlike personal taxes which are paid before basic life maintenance) - yes it's a benefit because it means people have to make up the difference on their personal taxes.

      The government has no inherent natural right to take money from anyone.

      Of course not, but lets be realistic how else will it pay for services?
      If you really don't want to pay tax you can always move to Yemen.
      But you want a police force to reduce crime, fire department to put out fires, etc...
      Taxes are necessary to make those things happen.
      I want everyone to pay their taxes so nobody has to pay an unfair amount.

      Also I think most companies will be happy to pay their taxes, so long as their competition also has to, because they benefit from government services just the same.

      companies are shifting assets and income

      That's so broken! These companies enjoy roads, an educated population, etc, they should not be allow to 'move' income from the place they earned it.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    6. Re:Great by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Companies do not create jobs, demand for goods creates jobs, companies fulfill that role of producing. If that company was not there the job would still be there. That is a myth created by the right.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    7. Re:Great by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People don't give up their natural rights when they form a corporation, but that does not mean that the corporation has all those same rights.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    8. Re:Great by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, let's look at a country without any kind of sensible government system in place. Let's take, say, Somalia. Now imagine you're doing business there. Ponder for a moment how much you'd pay to be protected from looting, to have your workforce protected from being mugged, to create and maintain an infrastructure so you have gas, water, power and transportation, ...

      Then you know what's fair.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Great by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, no. Jobs are to a company a necessary evil. No company in their sane mind creates a job for the sake of creating a job, only if said job generates more revenue than what the worker costs that job will be created.

      I create jobs. I buy goods and services.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Great by qbast · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Automation doesn't destroy jobs, it increases the amount of goods that a single worker can produce, making everyone richer..

      Except for the worker who gets fired.

    11. Re: Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the UK we have the concept of an individual being "self employed". If companies did not exist, then every job, where there is demand, would be done by a person. He or she would pay tax on their income. Corporation tax only exists because corporations exist. And it is not fair that a self employed owner of a coffee shop has to pay tax on their profits, whilst a large multinational like Starbucks pays no tax, even though the shops are located in the same street and sell the same goods.

    12. Re:Great by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, you need robot makers.

      But the whole point of automation is to reduce costs or increase productivity or quality.

      If you robotize McDonalds, you're not going to increase the number of people who eat there ; that's pretty much determined by the size of the restaurant and the capacity of the kitchen. Quality is pretty much set by the quality of the ingredients, and is not the reason people eat in McDonalds.

      The kitchen labour is flexible - McDonalds go to great pains to have people on contracts that mean they can have them work as little or as much as they need. So the thing they are making flex is labour, not production. Add robots, and you have less human labour. If you don't, there is no economic reason to do so - you don't need more production (or they would be having problems recruiting, not trying to keep their workforce lean).

      If robots cost more to make and maintain than your human labour, you don't use them. Therefore robots mean fewer dollars in the pockets of human labour. It creates SOME jobs higher up the supply chain, sure, but not the kind of jobs that McDonalds kitchen labour can do - these guys are by and large, on the lower half of the bell curve for ability, as you point out. But if you need to spend more dollars on robots and engineers to handle them, you're doing it wrong. Therefore more money departs from the labour end of the economy (the customers of McDonalds) and into the pockets of the owners (the customers of 5 star restaurants).

      Extend this to every low-skill employer and you have a vast underclass of unemployed people who i) need supporting ii) can no longer afford to buy goods and services that they previously would have afforded.

      Lower demand means less economic activity which means more push to increase productivity and decrease labour.

      Before long, robots are making the robots. The only guy with a job in robotics is the guy who maintains the robot maintaining robot. Sooner or later they realise that if they make another robot maintaining robot, they can make him redundant too.

      At this point you can go one of two ways :

      i) The 0.1% own all the robots and don't see why they should share their wealth. The remaining human population compete for an increasingly small pool of non-automatable jobs, the unemployed are herded into basic subsistence camps (by robot "peacekeepers").
      ii) Everyone realises that the robots are made of materials from the Earth, and powered by energy from the Sun, that the Earth should be owned by all of us equally and that we should be striving for universal human happiness, and that if we cooperate we can all have a living standard that exceeds the definition of "comfortable" by some large margin, since all these robots made everything so gosh-darned productive

  2. If You Had An Electronic Currency by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could just tax every transaction made with that currency at a fairly low percentage of the total transaction and do away with all the other taxes. Credit card companies figured this out decades ago.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  3. Re:Why call it a 'Google' tax? by thaylin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because some people have a hard on to hurt Google.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  4. Re:great name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absolutely correct!

    Google doesn't sell anything or make any money in the UK.

    Doesn't sell apps through the play store, doesn't sell any Nexus devices, doesn't sell any advertising, not a sausage.... Well, not profitably anyway, it's a strangely expensive business to be in, as there are all these funny fees and license payments they have to pay, all to other google subsidiaries in Ireland/Luxembourg/Netherlands/etc.

    All seems above board to me!!

  5. Get rid of corporate taxes totally by Chirs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know it sounds crazy at first blush, but I think it would make sense to totally get rid of corporate taxes. (Replaced by other forms of taxation.)

    The basic idea is that a corporation is nothing but a bunch of people owning it, so instead of taxing the corporation you tax the individual owners (owners, shareholders, etc.) instead. Since corporations wouldn't be paying taxes, you could then get rid of all of the tax breaks/writeoffs for corporations, which would significantly simplify corporate accounting and reduce the incentive for large corporations to shift money around to avoid tax.

    Some references:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
    http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...
    http://www.vox.com/2014/8/8/59...

  6. Why not abolish corporate taxes entirely? by Chirs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The basic idea is that a corporation is nothing but a bunch of people owning it, so instead of taxing the corporation you shift the tax to the individual owners (owners, shareholders, etc.) instead. Since corporations wouldn't be paying taxes, you could then get rid of all of the tax breaks/writeoffs for corporations, which would significantly simplify corporate accounting and reduce the incentive for large corporations to shift money around to avoid tax.

  7. There is no single "fair" value. by Chirs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How much is "fair" depends on the culture the company and government are operating in.

    You could have a libertarian society with minimal government involvement and minimal taxation, but where every individual has to pay for everything they do. (Roads, fire protection, ambulance, medical, police, education, utilities, garbage collection, etc.)

    On the other hand, you could have a more socialist society with high taxation and high government involvement, but where most of the services are paid for by the government.

    Both are viable solutions, with different tradeoffs.

    1. Re:There is no single "fair" value. by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Services paid for by the government *are* services paid for by individuals. I pay a significant portion of my paycheck in taxes. Please don't tell me that I'm not individually paying for government programs.

      What you mean is that the government ensures that everyone has individual services irrespective of their ability to pay for them. They make that happen by charging individuals with those means to pay for people who do not have those means. If I am poor and want fire services, under a libertarian system, I pay let's say $100, but under the government, I pay $10, $1 or even zero. If I am not poor, under a libertarian system I will still pay $100 for fire services, but under the government, I pay $150 (or more).

      Unless the government is an entity that generates its own operating expenses from the sale of a service or product, it is not anything other than individuals being forced to pay for services. It's just not all individuals at the same rate.

      Don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily arguing for the existence of the a la carte ultra-Libertarian state. The government exists for a reason and I happily pay taxes for those services that government is well designed to manage. What I don't like is when the government becomes an engine for wealth redistribution, forced charity, or social engineering experiments.

  8. Re:Why tax profits, why not income? by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Show me anyone outside the 1% and even 99% of the 1%'ers that would choose to make less money because they where being taxed too heavily on it. That is a complete fallacy.

  9. Re:Why tax profits, why not income? by rabtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tax income, and they have reason to make less. Why go get the new job that pays a tad more when 25% of your raise goes to the feds?

    This has to be one of the dumbest arguments of all time and I can't imagine anyone who actually has money ever actually operates this way or they're headed for ruin rather quickly.

    Of course you take the job; 75% of the extra income goes into your pocket. A business that decides not to sell more widgets at a 75% profit margin because they'd have to spend 25% to sell the widgets (taxes, overhead, etc) is a business headed for bankruptcy.

    The only programs in the USA that lead to less overall income when you get a raise are ones for poor people like Medicaid where making one extra dollar can cut off your benefits.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  10. Re:Google should leave by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, that kind of attitude goes down really well.

    Hence why Microsoft kowtowed to the EU requests and paid millions of dollars in fines, etc.

    Pulling out of one of the top two world markets (depends what you look at exactly, but Europe and the US are either 1st or 2nd in almost any product/industry), especially over a sales tax, is corporate insanity and will see stockholder lawsuits within seconds.

    And, to be honest, there are countries that survive just fine without Google. Google is only really the top search engine in English-speaking countries. And Google Maps? What about it? I can name ten different companies producing maps accurate enough for almost any purpose. You think ONLY Google get the mapping and aerial photography data of a country? Maybe StreetView (because they're the only ones really doing it seriously), but maps? No.