Live data from Hacker News

Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

bloomberg.com

301–310 of 324 posts

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#301
post #29

Apple and Facebook are currently building massive datacentres in Denmark, and Google has bought two plots for future datacentres. They have definitely been wooed to denmark, labour and consumer electricity prices are some of the highest in the world. https://facebook.com/OdenseDataCenter/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-denmark/apple-to-bu... https://stateofgreen.com/en/partners/state-of-green/news/goo...

I doubt that some data centers make much of a difference. Those tend to be employ maybe two cleaners, one depressed robot and one or two jaded administrators, plus their pot dealer. They also don't buy anything locally, except electricity at negotiated prices close to or below the costs of production. Maybe they lead to some earnings/profits to be at their location? Considering the issue discussed here, I doubt that.

> Those tend to be employ maybe two cleaners, one depressed robot and one or two jaded administrators, plus their pot dealer.

You just wrote the plot to The New IT Crowd..

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#302
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Ireland be able to determine the taxation policies of Ireland? The EU doesn’t set immigration law for Ireland does it? Why should it be allowed to dictate tax law? Low taxes can be a competitive advantage to fiscally responsible countries, why must the EU try to “fix” that?

For sure the EU sets at least parts of the immigration law of Ireland. Every EU citizen is free to settle there. Even more, Ireland is a Schengen party, so any visa or legal immigrant of a Schengen member must be accepted to Ireland as well.

> so any visa or legal immigrant of a Schengen member must be accepted to Ireland as well.

This is not true. Only those with a EU country citizenship are fully covered by the free movement rules. You can read more about it here: https://ec.europa.eu/immigration/general-information/already... but I will give you a quote: "To move from one EU country to another for more than 90 days, you will need a long-stay visa or a residence permit for that country. If you wish to work, study or join your family in the second country, you may have to fulfil more conditions."

An exception to this are so called Blue card holders, but only those with certain education/ professional experience plus job offer with a salary above a certain level are eligible for such a card.

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#303
post #290
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "monopoly" is best judged by "current market share", but by whether a) it's easy for users to switch, and b) whether having that market share is self-reinforcing in a way that prevents competitors from entering. The parent's point was that a) is not true for Google as a search engine. b) doesn't seem to be true either; while money and experience can make you provide better search results, you don't get…

b) whether having that market share is self-reinforcing in a way that prevents competitors from entering. The argument is that large market share cause user capture. It is relative trivial to bring online an alterative youtube, but video creators can't switch unless the audience also switch and the audience can't switch unless the creators also switch. A subpar job by youtube won't automatically mean that competitor…

I was addressing search, not advertising or video hosting.

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#304
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please help me understand why is it okay to tax people on income but not corporations?

Sorry, the project is actually about taxing "revenue", i fixed it, thanks. Taxing on revenue means a corporation that actually loose money because its expenses (salaries, investmenst, etc) are larger than its sales would still have to pay taxes, making it loose even more money. It doesn't make any kind of sense unless you're targeting a very particular set of companies that you know are making money. In which case yo…

The sad part is everyone would prefer taxing profits, but that just doesn't work with multinational firms. Since, you know, they will restructure their company to on paper generate all profit in a tax haven. For example their algorithms are owned there, even though it was probably developed by you local citizens, is deployed on you local server and the sale to the tax haven happened for a symbolic dollar and for sure not an open market.

It is also almost impossible for new companies to start competing if existing big players can easily avoid paying taxes while you cannot. And no, we cannot simply allow everyone to not pay taxes.

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#305

1. I knew Ireland was on the list without reading the article 2. Sweden is lobbied by Spotify 3. Denmark tries to attract Google. Cui bono.

Sweden has a successful tech economy and doesn't want to be held back by lumbering continental countries and their fears.

Yes, every other country would do the same, but it does explain Sweden on list which was my intention.

This tone

"lumbering continental countries"

wasn't called for though. Could we be civilized here without insults and hate?

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#306

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the sole reason multinational corporations can avoid paying taxes, that they “have to” pay surprisingly large royalties to some sister company in a tax haven that “owns” all the rights to the mother company’s trademarks and other IP? Isn’t this the reason that a company like Google mysteriously isn’t able to turn a profit in most European countries? And if I’m right, couldn’t…

But they should be able to pay something to sister or parent company because they actually use the software developed there. The question is how much. Probably not all of the profits. I guess it's really hard to determine and define strict and fair rules in this area.

I wonder if those sales could be force to an open market. A bit like anti trust laws.

I'm sure they would pay a lot more for their trademarks if other companies could otherwise snitch it for like a year.

Or why not having to accept or at the least pay taxes on the best offer you get, when you want to sell to some IP and later lease it from some other company?

Yes, that seems unrealistic. It might at least be possible to use this in e.g. the court of law to test for abuse.

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#307
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pay VAT for sells in your country. It doesn't matter if it's consumer or a company paying the tax, the amount is added to the price. If you want them tax then increase that. Why do you feel entitled to profits of the company that isn't based in your country? It's like thinking the company should pay 5m in tax in Ireland based on sells in France while being ok with them deducting expenses from unrelated business…

> They pay VAT for sells in your country. It doesn't matter if it's consumer or a company paying the tax, the amount is added to the price. If you want them tax then increase that. VAT is tax for consumers, not corporations. > Why do you feel entitled to profits of the company that isn't based in your country? Because those profits are made from sales in that country, and every physical company selling in that countr…

>>VAT is tax for consumers, not corporations.

It doesn't matter. It gets added to the price. All the money paid in taxes comes from consumers - be it VAT, sales tax, tax on profit, tarrifs - you name it. It doesn't matter which side you tax, it matters what kind of activity taxing is focused on.

>>Because those profits are made from sales in that country

Sales in that country is one element. Another is being efficient and well organized which another country allows. If you want to tax sells in your country - do it, I think it's great idea.

>>just because Internet-based companies can avoid having a physical presence to perform their sales (Amazon still has warehouses), doesn't make them exempt from the same logic.

Physical goods companies can avoid presence as well. A lot of them ship products to other countries but don't have offices there. They pay VAT.

It's easy to see why taxing profits is a very bad idea by considering situations where that tax differs from consumption tax. Here are few showing ridiculousness of taxing corporate profits:

1)Company A makes and sells tires, Company B makes and sells electronic chips. Company C does both. They don't differ much in efficiency or quality and C does the same volume as A and B in their respective industries. Now let's say 2020 is a bad year for tires due to increasing prices of materials and a very good year for chips due to AI advancement (everyone wants new AI equipped vacuum cleaner or w/e). Company A losses money, company B makes money. Company C makes as much money as company B on chips but losses same as company A on tires. Company C pays less tax than A and B combined. I hope it's obvious why this is bad. This alone makes tax on profits ridiculous idea. We just need something different.

2)Company A and B do the same thing. The difference is that management of company A likes buying high level employees exotic super cars and expensive trips. In 2020 companies A and B have the same product, same sells. The difference is that company's B employees drive 5 years old Volskwagens to clients and organize most of its meetings online while company's B employees drive and service super cars and go to Maldives 2 times a year. Company B pays more taxes.

3)In a small country there are only 2 companies and all the taxes come from them and their employees. They do the same thing - produce cars because that's what the citizens are good at. company A breaks even, company B has better management and produce same cars but more efficiently thus showing profits. Company A is happy with functioning as it is. Only company B pays taxes and funds schools, roads, hospitals. Socialists come to power and they want increase corporate taxes (as they are economically ignorant). Now Company B pays even higher taxes while Company's A tax burden doesn't change. Company's B employees lose motivation to work smarter because they see new taxes just tax their ingenuity and there is little incentive to make processes efficient. Maybe it's better to buy super cars and expensive exotic trips.

4)Two companies A and B in country X do software business. A buys licenses for components from a company in Switzerland (high labor costs thus higher prices), B develops them domestically for 50% of cost. Both companies have 10M in sells. B pays 9M for software, A pays 4.5M for development. Corporate tax rate is 20%. Citizens of the country V get 5.5M * 0.2 = 1.1M for roads and schools from company B and only 0.2M from company A, the difference goes to Swiss people. Even if tax rate in Switzerland is 30% it doesn't make any sense for country X to adopt this policy. No amount of forcing Switzerland to extract "fair share" is going to change that, their rate is already higher (of course Switzerland doesn't have 30% rate as that would be idiotic, I am just making a hypothetical).

There are more of this. It's easy to see. Focusing on taxing corporate profits is a sign of being short-sighted and petty thinking. It's not what you want even if equality is your major goal. Taxing profits defends lazy incumbents and makes things we don't want tax advantaged strategy this includes combining various activities under one umbrella, buying pointless shit because of tax deductions and temporary price gauging to kill upcoming companies.

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#308
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pay VAT for sells in your country. It doesn't matter if it's consumer or a company paying the tax, the amount is added to the price. If you want them tax then increase that. Why do you feel entitled to profits of the company that isn't based in your country? It's like thinking the company should pay 5m in tax in Ireland based on sells in France while being ok with them deducting expenses from unrelated business…

AFAIK Vat is a tax which insist on consumers, not on companies.

Usually companies collect it and pay it but it really doesn't matter. At the end of the day all the money the corporation has comes from consumers and chunk of it goes to taxes. The question is what you are allowed to deduct and how tax burden is distributed among various companies. Every company will try to sell goods for as much as the customers are willing to pay. The consumer doesn't care if there is VAT, environmental tax or whatever else included. They just look at the final price.

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#309
post #292
post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 - You seem to imply that for one to be a good "bureaucrat", one needs to have roots in the private sector. Can I just say that this is far from obvious for everybody? If anything, I'd be wary of those people as they pose a far greater risk of conflict of interests. I don't want to be run by lobbies, thank you. The recent story of M. Kohler, Macron's closest ally, makes me very wary. I won't say that all private ban…

Wow, so now not accepting taxes on revenue as something sound makes you « ultra liberal » ? how fast things evolve...

This is the textbook definition, yes. At least in France's political jargon.

Re: Three European Countries Block Tax on Tech Giants

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So an oil company that buys steel pipe to make an oil well doesn't pay VAT on the pipe? Not a European, so just asking.

Either it pays the VAT and gets an equal tax credit, or it doesn't pay it at all (when applying reverse charge). Result is the same, VAT is not a cost for enteprises. Obviously the fact that end consumers pay VAT might disincentivise them to buy stuff, so companies still suffer the effects of high VAT rates.

>>Result is the same, VAT is not a cost for enteprises.

It's not a cost when transacting with other companies but it's obviously a cost when selling to end customers. If people are willing to buy a car for 20 000 Euro you will be forced to sell for 16 666 Euro + 20% VAT, you can't magically sell for 20 000 + 20% VAT because "consumers pay VAT". If materials + labor cost of a car is 10 000 Euro you make 6 666 Euro per car if there is 20% VAT and 10 000 Euro per car if there is no VAT.

Post reply on HN