21–30 of 238 posts
They'll probably back down when companies threaten to leave. Like Amazon did when threatened with the Head Tax. Or how Dole left Hawaii.
Good. It is becoming more and more apparent that there is a toll on society created by these companies. They have a negative impact on our domestic businesses (traditional brick and mortar, as well as home-grown digital businesses) not to mention our mental health and even democracy. By taxing them, hopefully we can go some way to reversing some of that damage (although I'm less hopeful of that...).
Also, what seems to have provoked this tax in the UK specifically is the tendency for such companies to artificially lower their profits to more or less avoid UK corporation tax altogether by claiming that sales of UK clicks to UK companies handled by UK based account managers were in fact completed in Ireland...
The only possible criticism of the UK govt is that they made this bed for themselves by aggressively narrowing the tax base.
I was scared for a minute. I thought this was about taxing consumer for accessing internet. It's fine. It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes.
> It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes. I wouldn't say "evading" unless what they are doing is illegal. If they are following the law, and the law allows what they're doing, then it's not tax evasion. If you're not happy, then change the law to actually make it illegal, and then if those companies are still doing it then you can call it tax evasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you see it as a tariff? Do not let the more efficient foreign player in, to let the local equivalent develop? Economically it does not make sense, if we are looking for a global optimum (literally); this is the standard free-trade argument. It may make sense if there's no global trust; you don't want to depend on products of a potential unfriendly party, or let them have a large foothold in your economy, just, wel…
I take your point, but I think you've over simplified the situation. For example, in days gone by, the UK tax system happily forced retailers to pay vast amounts of tax ("business rates") based on the shops they occupied in town centres. This was part of the total tax burned on retailers. Online retailers avoid this tax and thus could be considered to have an unfair advantage over bricks-and-mortar stores.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes. I wouldn't say "evading" unless what they are doing is illegal. If they are following the law, and the law allows what they're doing, then it's not tax evasion. If you're not happy, then change the law to actually make it illegal, and then if those companies are still doing it then you can call it tax evasion.
Pointing out this distinction makes it sound like it's fine as long as it's legal. It's like when people say "It's not terrorism when a state does it because terrorism is defined as non-state political violence". It's technically true, but largely besides the point.
Except that it's not; usual definitions of terrorism don't exclude state action, and indeed state action is of particular concern with regard to terrorism, to the point of being frequently cited as justification for state-on-state warfare in recent decades.
I was scared for a minute. I thought this was about taxing consumer for accessing internet. It's fine. It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes.
> It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes. I wouldn't say "evading" unless what they are doing is illegal. If they are following the law, and the law allows what they're doing, then it's not tax evasion. If you're not happy, then change the law to actually make it illegal, and then if those companies are still doing it then you can call it tax evasion.
Ed Sheeran pays more tax in the UK than Amazon.
Edit: holy moly it is! https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/ed-sheeran-may-be-the-worlds-...
One thing that will be interesting around this is any future trade negotiations the UK has with the US, especially after we leave the EU. This tax will target the US giants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes. I wouldn't say "evading" unless what they are doing is illegal. If they are following the law, and the law allows what they're doing, then it's not tax evasion. If you're not happy, then change the law to actually make it illegal, and then if those companies are still doing it then you can call it tax evasion.
Pointing out this distinction makes it sound like it's fine as long as it's legal. It's like when people say "It's not terrorism when a state does it because terrorism is defined as non-state political violence". It's technically true, but largely besides the point.