21–30 of 314 posts
Revenue taxes on businesses that are effectively monopolies in their markets are... not smart. They will raise prices by exactly the amount of the tax and the only ones suffering are their customers who now pay 3% more for everything. I bet it would even be added as line item to every invoice “EU Revenue Tax, 3%” I’m sure everyone will love it!
As an answer big techs will likely break these companies into 100 smaller ones to avoid the thresholds? "The levy would cover companies that have annual worldwide total revenue exceeding 750 million euros ($920 million) and total taxable annual revenue from offering digital services in the EU above 50 million euros."
From that angle, the transition from Google to Alphabet was prescient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What right does the EU have to tax revenue (not even earnings) from money made on non-EU citizens? Every right. Their government, their citizens, their laws. > but global revenues? These companies exist globally. They would be vastly smaller and have far less impact if they did not have EU citizens. Network effects matter and ignoring them is choosing to not understand the big picture. > So they'd be asking Twitter…
> Every right. Their government, their citizens, their laws. If a company doesn't have offices in your country, it's not yours. >These companies exist globally Well, maybe the net result is to get out of the EU then, if the costs of 3% of global revenues exceed profits. If you don't think a company that is mostly non-profit (Twitter) shouldn't exist, I feel that's a pretty pathetic position. So you're either a very g…
You've boxed the parent into three positions. They're kind of orthogonal so it's hard to approach directly, but consider a hypothetical 4th position.
What if the parent hypothetically thinks that twitter is acceptable collateral damage if it means fixing some other abuse, does that make him greedy? What if he gains nothing from it?
I think I've just provided a way out of your boxes, if you disagree please let me know!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What right does the EU have to tax revenue (not even earnings) from money made on non-EU citizens? Every right. Their government, their citizens, their laws. > but global revenues? These companies exist globally. They would be vastly smaller and have far less impact if they did not have EU citizens. Network effects matter and ignoring them is choosing to not understand the big picture. > So they'd be asking Twitter…
> Every right. Their government, their citizens, their laws. If a company doesn't have offices in your country, it's not yours. >These companies exist globally Well, maybe the net result is to get out of the EU then, if the costs of 3% of global revenues exceed profits. If you don't think a company that is mostly non-profit (Twitter) shouldn't exist, I feel that's a pretty pathetic position. So you're either a very g…
Google has offices in almost every EU country.
https://careers.google.com/locations/
Aarhus, Amsterdam, Athens, Berlin, Bratislava, Brussels, Budapest, Copenhagen, Dublin (EU HQ), Eemshaven, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hamina, Helsinki, Lisbon, London, Lubeck, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Munich, Oslo, Paris. Prague, Rome, Saint-Ghislain, Stockholm, Vienna, Warsaw, Wroclaw, Zagreb Zurich
Twitter: https://careers.twitter.com/en/locations.html
Berlin, Brussels, Dublin, Hamburg, London, Madrid, Paris
What right does the EU have to tax revenue (not even earnings) from money made on non-EU citizens? I could understand an argument that they have a right to levy a tax on money created by selling services to EU citizens, but global revenues? They mention Twitter as an example in the article, but Twitter's revenues for 2017 was $3.83 billion, and their net-earnings is mostly negative, or barely positive. So they'd be a…
The really big difference is they can actually enforce revenue-based taxation, because revenue in a country is directly tied to the number of users/customers in that country. Meanwhile, profit could be much more easily switched around in Google's accounting books, to the point it hardly had to pay any tax in the EU.
One other thing, while many are accusing EU of doing this because of "envy", they're ignoring the fact that China is doing way worse against American companies. Not only are foreign companies taxed locally in China, and I don't think they get away with their accounting shenanigans over there, but China also basically demands that 50% of their assets over there are owned by a local company. Can you imagine if the EU said it needs to own 50% of Google or Amazon's assets on EU territory?
And then throw in the much larger tariffs for foreign imports that China has. Why isn't the media focusing on that more?
This will raise prices of goods the least and directly target the largest companies.
Revenue taxes on businesses that are effectively monopolies in their markets are... not smart. They will raise prices by exactly the amount of the tax and the only ones suffering are their customers who now pay 3% more for everything. I bet it would even be added as line item to every invoice “EU Revenue Tax, 3%” I’m sure everyone will love it!
Google has already passed on Australia’s 10% “overseas digital goods and services tax” as a line item on G Suite. My bill is 10% higher.
Revenue taxes on businesses that are effectively monopolies in their markets are... not smart. They will raise prices by exactly the amount of the tax and the only ones suffering are their customers who now pay 3% more for everything. I bet it would even be added as line item to every invoice “EU Revenue Tax, 3%” I’m sure everyone will love it!
We are all in this world together. It is insane that corporations have been able to reap untold profits while hardly being taxed at all. These companies could not exist without the societies of the people who buy their products. They should pay taxes wherever they do business, even if fiat currency isn't changing hands (i.e., Facebook and Twitter free users) as specified here. Good move EU. Higher taxes on megacorps…
Well, tax them on the money they make from EU sales then. I hardly see why the EU has a claim on revenues made by overseas companies on non-EU citizens. How about the US levy a tax on global BMW and Benz revenues?
I'm pretty sure the thinking of the legislators is taxing net income is too easily manipulated. Therefore by taxing a 'small' (up for debate) amount of revenues there's less gamesmanship that can take place when determining tax liability.
For reference, Texas charges a 1% tax on taxable margin over $1M with three options for determining taxable margin. This gives companies less wiggle room when determining tax liability
What right does the EU have to tax revenue (not even earnings) from money made on non-EU citizens? I could understand an argument that they have a right to levy a tax on money created by selling services to EU citizens, but global revenues? They mention Twitter as an example in the article, but Twitter's revenues for 2017 was $3.83 billion, and their net-earnings is mostly negative, or barely positive. So they'd be a…
You are mischaracterizing the proposal. Let’s be clear: the EU has no intentions of enforcing taxation outside of their jurisdiction and of course they have every right to enforce taxes within it. It’s pretty normal stuff.