Slashdot Mirror
UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'
mrspoonsi sends this report from the BBC:
Companies that move their profits overseas to avoid tax will be subject to a "diverted profits tax" from April, the chancellor has said. In his final Budget before the election, George Osborne said firms that aid tax evasion will also face new penalties and criminal prosecutions. The so-called "Google Tax" is designed to discourage large companies diverting profits out of the the UK to avoid tax. "Let the message go out: this country's tolerance for those who will not pay their fair share of taxes has come to an end," Mr. Osborne said. In 2012 it emerged that internet giant Google avoided tax on £10bn UK revenue in 2011 by doubling the amount of money put into a shell company in Bermuda. Doing so helped it avoid £1bn in corporation tax. Under the new tax regime, companies with an annual turnover of £10m will have to tell HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) if they think their company structure could make them liable for diverted profit tax. Once HMRC has assessed the structures, and decided how much profit has been artificially diverted from the UK, multinationals will have only 30 days to object to the 25% tax.
Really? And it's never because Comcast either bought the competition OR pushed them out of business out of unfair competition?
Never ever ever?
A consumption tax is inherently regressive. Those with smaller incomes must use a larger proportion of it on consumption. The wealthy will spend a comparatively tiny fraction of their income on tax and continue to amass vast piles of money.
I'd prefer to see an approach where the corporate income tax is abolished and replaced by higher capital-gains and dividend taxes on the owners
He will do because its a big topic over here in the UK, and has been for a while.
Personally, I applaud Osborn for doing it - for once we aren't saying "hey, you know those rules we made for you to adhere to? Well, we have decided that there are these other 'rules' as well which we would like you to adhere to, and we will say nasty things about you if you don't. Are they legally binding I hear you ask? Well, no, but that won't stop us from thinking you should be restricted by our second set of 'rules'..."
Instead, we are actually getting something done about the rules under which companies should be paying tax. As a lot of people have said all along, fuck the spirit of the law, apply the actual law. If the law doesn't say what you want it to say, change it. Don't try and bully people into following your additional 'voluntary' rules which you want to make over and above the actual laws.
They provide a country in which Google can make over 10 billion pounds a year. That's something Google should pay towards helping, surely. It's not grabbing their money, it's taking back the money they asked for and were not paid, by Google moving some numbers around between banks, in a direct, purposeful attempt to keep as many of those numbers as possible, to the detriment to the markets in which they made said money.
But I guess bitching about governments is more fun.
It is very important to understand that an "unregulated" market, and a "competitive" market are not the same thing, and are often opposites. The government should promote competition, and sometimes that means more regulation, not less.
The real problem is regulatory capture and the revolving door between the regulating agencies and the industries they're supposed to be overseeing. I think we need laws stating that anyone who has ever worked for an industry, and their immediate families and their known business associates, is not allowed to work in any capacity for a regulating agency, and vice-versa. The penalty should be ten years imprisonment with the general prison population, and the law should include a $50,000 bounty for the police officers, prosecutors, and any informants who successfully convict anyone guilty of this crime.
If that sounds harsh, consider the harshness of living under a government that no longer represents its people.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Hidden taxes like corporate income tax really abuse the low income population. Alas, demagogues find it easier to pretend otherwise for personal political gain.
So how will taxing Google's profits abuse the low income population? Perhaps google will quadruple the cost of search in order to pass on the cost...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No, Libertarians piss off both the left and the right. That's how we know we are correct.
By that definition, Scientology and ISIS sure got everything right, too.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
OK, I'll try to put this in simple terms and math for ya.
Let's assume you're making $1000/mo and you need $900 to live. If you pay a 10% tax, you're left with just $900, which means:
* barely affording enough to live, and most important:
* no money left for "consumption"
Which is bad, because that extra money is what drives tourism, hobbies, and all other sorts of activities you do to "enjoy your life". "Barely affording enough to live" is basically the same as communism.
Now let's take Mr. CEO making $1M/mo and needing $100K/mo to live. Take 10% off him and he still has $800K at the end of the month. Which he will, most likely, put in the bank (or stock market) for even more money (probably money they will loan to Average Joe who can't afford a new car).
You see: not everyone is equal. A wealthy person has *more* spending at the end of the month (bigger house, more power, employees), but still has money to spend. Barely Living Joe has much less spending, has to sacrifice a lot of luxuries. And yet, they both are paying "10% tax".
In other words: a flat tax "hurts" the poor much more than it hurts the rich.
A simple image to put it as an example: http://ctworkingmoms.com/wp-co...
Now, again, why do you want Average Joe to have more cash in hand at the end of the month? Because Average Joe is much more likely to *spend* that money, which drives the economy, rather that putting it in a bank.
Maybe in America, but here in Europe, tax is seen as the wheel to steer the ship of state, and social engineering is seen as important to maintaining a state in which the police do not shoot (many) people, and they don't (often) shoot back.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Again, the point of my original comment still stands: Slashdot Libertarians are defending the ultra-rich, as if they have any remote chance of becoming that rich.
It's just amazing.
Hey dude, wake up... the day you'll be as rich as Buffet you'll be able to skew laws in your favor anyway. Don't worry about that.
I don't know what's up with people defending the likes of Warren Buffet or any other guy who got rich by pure financial speculation. I'm not a marxist, and I have some money in investment funds. I just don't believe people who are that disgustingly rich should be given any mercy when it comes to taxing. They have all sorts of schemes NOT to pay taxes (like, precisely what this article says: sending their money abroad).