Live data from Hacker News

Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

bloomberg.com

221–230 of 314 posts

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#221
The state of Washington has a very similar concept: Business and Occupation tax. If you have nexus you pay taxes on local revenue. That’s in addition to the sales tax. The tax rates vary by industry, mostly a fraction of a percent.

I don’t know how successful the giants are in dodging taxes though. Perhaps they are trying to setup “independent” out of state entities that handle all of the sales.

There is also a trend afoot that pushes all businesses to pay sales tax across the entire US, nexus or not. The idea is that modern software makes compliance easy across all local tax regimes, so the old excuse of unmanageable complexity is losing its power. I don’t know the details though. So We might end up with the idea of nexus being deprecated too.

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So this is money made from EU based users and revenue they make from them. That's a gross oversimplification. Especially with the internet, it's not clear anymore. Let's say that I live in Thailand, have US citizenship, sell products on Amazon in England, ship to France, and then advertise on Google. Who do I pay taxes to and at what rate? Provenance of profit is not easy. You're paying Amazon a cut for shipping/ful…

> Let's say that I live in Thailand, have US citizenship, sell products on Amazon in England, ship to France, and then advertise on Google. Who do I pay taxes to and at what rate? You know there's a technical answer to this question. But the answer is pretty predictable : everyone. Taxes on income in Thailand. Taxes on income in US. Taxes on shipping, though pretty much only in the arriving port and several places yo…

> You know there's a technical answer to this question.

Not really a satisfying one, as you pointed out.

> Taxes on income in Thailand.

> Taxes on income in US.

Well, you don't have any income. You send all your profits to a shell company in some tax shelter somewhere (Isle of Man is an example) and only withdraw what you need for day-to day expenses. You can pay taxes on the income sitting in the tax shelter, but I can remind you of the multiplicative properties of zero.

> Taxes on selling in England and France.

> VAT France and England.

I agree with the VAT. What if you only had warehouses in a country with a better tax code, store all your inventory there and just ship to France and England. Host your servers there and use a static IP to redirect queries from a .co.uk domain to the same site with a .tv domain. What percentage of the sale should go to France, and what percentage should go to England?

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#223
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I like this proposal It is meant to be a popular proposal that will win lots of likes for the EU, but it's stupid on the face of it and it will end up comically abused. E.g. companies could create 2 resellers across europe, split the revenue and avoid the tax. It's not less brazen than their current dodging schemes and it just shows the impossibility of taxation under global free trade. It's also very p…

> companies could create 2 resellers across europe, split the revenue and avoid the tax That's exactly the point of taxing revenue: under a profit-based taxation scheme you'd end up with a net profit of zero. Revenue taxation schemes would double-tax this setup.

but if the revenue is below the limit, they wont be taxed, and i guess they can play that cat and mouse game forever.

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#224
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I like this proposal It is meant to be a popular proposal that will win lots of likes for the EU, but it's stupid on the face of it and it will end up comically abused. E.g. companies could create 2 resellers across europe, split the revenue and avoid the tax. It's not less brazen than their current dodging schemes and it just shows the impossibility of taxation under global free trade. It's also very p…

> companies could create 2 resellers across europe, split the revenue and avoid the tax That's exactly the point of taxing revenue: under a profit-based taxation scheme you'd end up with a net profit of zero. Revenue taxation schemes would double-tax this setup.

[deleted]

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#225
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is 100% wrong. Walmart buys[1] goods for 97 cents and sells them for a dollar. Google produces technology for 50 cents and sells it for a dollar. A 5% tax on revenue would make Walmart a money losing enterprise while being a minor annoyance for Google. This is why we tax profit and not revenue. Different industries have radically different cost structures.

The lower margin businesses will raise prices, and higher margin businesses will be forced to lower prices long term as people will have less money it's not a problem. Taxing profits encourages all kinds of undesirable behavior: buying expensive company cars, conferences in exotic locations, other perks because you get a huge discount (tax deduction) on them. I would argue it's immoral because you're taxing both effi…

Walmart's profit margins aren't smaller than Google's because they are wasting money on expensive cars or exotic conferences.

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best thing about this proposal is that it sets up a harmonious relationship It does the exact opposite. It spurs a further acrimonious relationship between the major economies of the EU and the US. Particularly France and Germany, which are a combined outsized share of the EU economy and represent ~80% of the trade deficit that the US has with the EU. This new tariff exists solely because the EU can't compete o…

What you are describing are Trump's steel tariffs, which indeed make no sense and do exactly what you say. I believe what the EU has realised, is, that trying to tax the profits of corporations that will simply move them around and declare them wherever they don't have to pay taxes on them, is a game of cat and mouse the EU can't win. So, they decided to go a different route. When Google decided they could negotiate…

[deleted]

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#227
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are a large amount of people treaing access to other nations markets as a human right? Why would you want to restrict (economic) interaction between two parties just because they’re far away from each other? I’m sure some of the local companies in my area would love to prevent me from buying goods elsewhere, but why would I want to buy goods elsewhere unless they are either cheaper and/or of better quality? In…

This is not so much about the interaction between the two parties, but aboutjust taxes. if companies can go wherever taxes are the lowest, without impact on profits, there will be a race to the bottom in corporate tax laws. In order to have an optimal amount of taxes for tech companies that can move at a whim, you need some sorts of capital controls that prevent that. I find a sales tax to be a very lean approach.

Sales tax might be lean in 1 jurisdiction but if you make companies pay it globally it's not. Huge amounts of complexity and many many jurisdictions. In some countries, even cities have sales tax not just counties or states. It would be a multi-million dollar project for a small company that does business worldwide online to figure out how and what to collect and pay in every jurisdiction it's customers are in and then file and pay the taxes to each entity.

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best thing about this proposal is that it sets up a harmonious relationship It does the exact opposite. It spurs a further acrimonious relationship between the major economies of the EU and the US. Particularly France and Germany, which are a combined outsized share of the EU economy and represent ~80% of the trade deficit that the US has with the EU. This new tariff exists solely because the EU can't compete o…

What you are describing are Trump's steel tariffs, which indeed make no sense and do exactly what you say. I believe what the EU has realised, is, that trying to tax the profits of corporations that will simply move them around and declare them wherever they don't have to pay taxes on them, is a game of cat and mouse the EU can't win. So, they decided to go a different route. When Google decided they could negotiate…

> What you are describing are Trump's steel tariffs, which indeed make no sense and do exactly what you say.

That's exactly what I'm describing. The US can't compete with low cost producers on steel, so it is seeking to raise barriers to competition.

Although I will point out there's at least one target for steel tariffs that would be very beneficial: Russia. The US imports four times as much steel from Russia as it does from China, and nearly as much as it does from Mexico. I'd much rather see those imports go to Canada and Mexico. The US can freely shut down all trade with Russia to zero negative economic effect for the US. Russia imports a mere $7 billion worth of US goods, ie it's a meaningless export market for the US (while the US buys $17 billion worth of Russian goods, ~1.4% of their economy).

Europe largely can't compete on technology with the US, failing for the last 10, 30, 50 years to build competitive companies and products of the scale that the US has. While the US has 40 or 50 large technology companies, the EU has a comparable four or five. So up the barriers go. I don't see how a 3% revenue tax is going to change the balance much though, they'll have to get a lot more draconian.

This policy by the EU is an admission of dysfunction and failure of the EU system. They can't get their countries to implement what some consider proper tax policies individually, so they're going to attempt (and likely fail) to get a unanimous vote on this revenue tax.

There are 20 countries in Europe with statutory corporate tax rates either just a bit above Google, near it, or below it. The effective rates are that much lower. Most of Europe is turning into a very low corporate tax haven. Except for a few nations, such as France, which has an infamously high corporate income tax rate. I can't imagine what the complaint is exactly given all of those low tax rates, other than that the spoils are overwhelmingly going to eg Ireland and other EU members with larger populations are jealous. I see this primarily as an attempt at wealth redistribution by Germany and France in their favor vs small lower tax EU nations.

Ireland has a GDP per capita nearly twice that of France now, in part due to their low tax policies. It's obviously in France's interest to try to pry some of that away from them.

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Buying locally doesn't always make sense, but often you can make an economic argument that paying slightly more for something made and sold locally is better for the consumer too. 9/10 times this isn't correct. If you live in an urban capital, sure. If you live in somewhere more rural, oftentimes the only local makers in the area will be rather terrible, and a large company will have a better warranty almost all of…

By local, I mean national, or state, depending on where your taxes actually go. Not necessarily from your next door neighbour. But I think we're looking at this from different aspects. I was considering self-imports (eg Alibaba, some Ebay/Amazon sellers). You're considering big-box-Chinesium-imports vs something made by a local mom-and-pop. You might get better support from the big box longevity but that might be mor…

> If you compare buying imported crap from a big-box to importing it yourself, you're paying the big-box for your "free" warranty. They build it into the price. But 30-50% of your cash is ending up offshore with no benefit to your own economy.

That's the brilliant part of free trade—in total, the amount gained by exporting will generally equal or be greater than if you were to tax on imports.

Lessening consumer options is almost never a good thing.

There's a bit more to "support" than a warranty. For example: if a person buys a piece of software, they should reasonably expect it to last until they move onto an operating system incompatible with it, no? What if an API the program uses is deprecated/removed for security reasons, ala Microsoft Gadgets.

There's also the problem of long-term customer support. Your average user uses CS at least a few times over the course of the product's lifespan.

A person who lives in Estonia or Poland doesn't even have a company creating say, a smartphone. They aren't competing with anything, so why punish both the company and consumer for getting a necessity in the modern age, a smartphone?

Re: Tech Giants Set to Face 3% Tax on Revenue Under New EU Plan

#230
post #65

How is this different to a tarriff? The EU has basically no companies that fit this description.

Spotify? King? Ubisoft? Probably a whole bunch more that I'm missing.

This original article doesn't say this, but there are reports that subscription companies like Netflix (& Spotify) would not be affected: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-eu-tech-titans-tax-riles.html

We'll see exactly how they define digital companies, but expect it to be highly political.

Post reply on HN