back to article Hi Facebook, Google, we think we might tax your ads instead – lots of love, Europe x

More details have emerged on the various plans being considered by European governments to force internet giants like Facebook, Google and Amazon to pay more in taxes, including a levy on internet ads and even withholding money for online transactions. Following a letter earlier this month from the finance ministers of Europe' …

Page:

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Import taxes are not normally used to correct for differences in tax regimes. They're normally used to protect cherished local industries against competition. Sometimes that competition may be getting an "unfair" advantage. Though how you define unfair is rather tough. China's labour is cheaper than ours because they're massively poorer than us as a country for example. They've also got lower employment and environmental standards for much the same reason.

      Already as they've got richer in the last decade, they're now upping those environmental standards - because a bit of extra money is now less valuable than not choking to death on the streets of many cities. A situation that the UK went through an identical version of in the 19th and early 20th Centuries.

      As a general rule of thumb, international trade makes the world as a whole richer. As it generally makes the global economy more efficient. And this latest explosion of globalisation has only stagnated living standards in a chunk of the West for about 15 years - meanwhile bringing a couple of billion poeple out of extreme poverty, and maybe growing the global middle class by some hundreds of millions.

      The whole world is massively richer than its ever been, millions of lives have been saved, birth rates are falling as infant mortality has plummeted and almost everyone is doing better than they've ever done before. At a relatively low cost to the already developed countries.

      Globalisation and free trade has been a success.

      But, or course it ain't perfect. There are downsides - which need to be dealt with.

      Lots of economic corrections take time. And while they slowly happen, people's lives get dislocated by economic changes and it's not much use saying that the economy will correct and return to equilibrium in twenty years time. As Keynes said, "in the long-run we're all dead."

      For that, you need government, to come in and soften the blow. And try to speed up recovery in areas adversely affected by globalisation. And tidy up the edges, and stop people from taking the piss.

      But it's really important to remember the good bits about international trade, as well as the bad bits. Criticise idiot free-marketeers all you like, but only if you're willing to look at the people attacking globalisation and say, "what are the costs of reversing it?"

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        "China's labour is cheaper than ours because they're massively poorer than us as a country for example. They've also got lower employment and environmental standards for much the same reason."

        Actually that advantage went away years ago. Chinese workers are about as expensive as those in Europe or America, but China wins (briefly and only a small amount) on environmental compliance costs (which are rising rapidly) and extremely effective logistics.

  1. Adam 1

    It'll never happen due to vested interests, but the simplest solution would be too tax at the higher rate between seller and buyer. In the French/Irish example, the tax to the French sale is 33%-15%=18%.

    There may still be benefits to setting up these shell companies but they would need to derive from efficiencies or value add rather than tax avoidance.

    I guess the other way would be to apportion 50:50 between seller and buyers jurisdictions. So back to France and Ireland, Ireland gets 7.5% and France gets 16.5%.

    Aside from getting everyone to agree on the treaty, what would stop such a scheme from being a practical solution to the wealth transfer open only to global megacorps with sufficient tax lawyers?

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Why should France get half the profits? Google are a US company who pour billions into research and even more billions into infrastructure. So surely most of their profits should accrue to where that value is added - a lot of which would be California?

      There's no way to perfectly apportion this. But what we need is agreed international accounting rules on transfer-pricing. It's being done at the global talking-shops - but I can't see it taking less than 10-15 years.

      Admittedly the stupid US Corp Tax system says that foreign profits are only subject to tax when repatriated. And you're allowed to defer that indefinitely. If they change that, so all tax is due, then they'd have to start paying their US corp tax. And if that hurt too much, then they'd move their innovation out of the US. So Trump may actually be right (for once) by talking about lowering their Corp Tax and ending that exemption. If he's competent enough to get that through Congress (ha ha).

      At least then US multi-nationals might start paying more of their taxes. But I suspect a lot of it would go back to the US. But that's probably also where they should be paying most of them.

  2. Nocroman

    If they tax the adds they lose the service. If they tax the people for using the internet, we the people stop using the internet. Yes the idiotic greedy take all the money away from everyone but themselves will send this world back to the stone age.

    How about a tax of 50% of politicians wages every time they open their mouths with a stupid idea or try to make another bad law?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So much 20th century thinking here.

    We do not inhabit that millenium any longer.

    Unless you want services and infrastructure like the century before that one, new laws are needed to prevent companies exploiting out dated tav law to avoid paying taxes where they "should". Tax should be paid where the exploitation takes place.

  4. StephenTompsett

    EU basic principle

    "The Commission wants to apply a simple principle" - They want to grab as much money as they can!

  5. garymiller

    Permission marketing is the way out

    Folks at these giant multinationals do forget that permission marketing is the way to go about these days. Moreover content restrictions across borders is another dilemma that is to be looked into. Like just recently I had to use a Sweden VPN reviewsdir.com/best-sweden-vpn/ to access US Netflix shows in Sweden because those shows are inaccessible in Sweden. Now, I don't understand why simply the content publishers allow it with little side banners advertisements then to block a show completely? I think there's always a solution but these giant corporations aren't interested in devising one.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like