4 ms·

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 worldw

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."

jiaweihli 9y ago
From that angle, the transition from Google to Alphabet was prescient.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Not prescient. It was exactly one of the primary reason for doing it: not being considered a "monopoly" or to make people not think so much that "Google" owns everything.
crispyporkbites 9y ago
The law doesn’t work like that, if the taxman sees you as one company, you are one company
awalton 9y ago
> As an answer big techs will likely break these companies into 100 smaller ones to avoid the thresholds? That sounds like a huge win to me. More competition is better for the market at a whole, and these 100 smaller companies will not be able to stop from competing with each other (or maybe we'll learn they just were better off as separate companies in the first place...)
- themihai 9y ago
  >> More competition is better for the market at a whole, Hold on...they will be different companies just on the paper...more like Google1, Google2 and Google3.. instead of one big Google.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    Are they listed separately on the stock exchange? If so, then they really separate companies, not just different on paper. Their ownership of the different companies will eventually diverge from each other and the companies will need to compete with each other to satisfy their owners. If not, then the taxman will probably be smart enough to send the bill to the parent company instead of the mini-Googles.
    - themihai 9y ago
      >> If so, then they really separate companies, not just different on paper. Their ownership of the different companies will eventually diverge from each other and the companies will need to compete with each other to satisfy their owners. You don't get it... the tax man proved not to be that smart to send the bill to the parent company. You may want to google: "What is a shell company?"
      - vidarh 9y ago
        Shell companies work because it allows them to shift profit around. That is exactly why this proposal goes after revenue. The problem is not identifying ownership.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    This is what these companies are already doing, and exactly what this law is designed to address. Bear in mind, one of the top ways these companies currently avoid being taxed is to claim they had no profit... because Google France had to spend all it's supposed gains licensing permission to call itself "Google", a trademark of the US company. (Apple, Microsoft, etc. all do the same.)
alkonaut 9y ago
If there is no parent owning the child companies then that should work. But obviously if there is no central parent owner there is no being a “giant” with the benefits that brings. Just breaking a company in 10 parts owned by a parent doesn’t make any difference. Revenue would be counted at the top (or the idea is pointless)

jiaweihli 9y ago

From that angle, the transition from Google to Alphabet was prescient.

mtgx 9y ago
Not prescient. It was exactly one of the primary reason for doing it: not being considered a "monopoly" or to make people not think so much that "Google" owns everything.

crispyporkbites 9y ago

The law doesn’t work like that, if the taxman sees you as one company, you are one company

awalton 9y ago

> As an answer big techs will likely break these companies into 100 smaller ones to avoid the thresholds? That sounds like a huge win to me. More competition is better for the market at a whole, and these 100 smaller companies will not be able to stop from competing with each other (or maybe we'll learn they just were better off as separate companies in the first place...)

themihai 9y ago
>> More competition is better for the market at a whole, Hold on...they will be different companies just on the paper...more like Google1, Google2 and Google3.. instead of one big Google.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Are they listed separately on the stock exchange? If so, then they really separate companies, not just different on paper. Their ownership of the different companies will eventually diverge from each other and the companies will need to compete with each other to satisfy their owners. If not, then the taxman will probably be smart enough to send the bill to the parent company instead of the mini-Googles.
  - themihai 9y ago
    >> If so, then they really separate companies, not just different on paper. Their ownership of the different companies will eventually diverge from each other and the companies will need to compete with each other to satisfy their owners. You don't get it... the tax man proved not to be that smart to send the bill to the parent company. You may want to google: "What is a shell company?"
    - vidarh 9y ago
      Shell companies work because it allows them to shift profit around. That is exactly why this proposal goes after revenue. The problem is not identifying ownership.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  This is what these companies are already doing, and exactly what this law is designed to address. Bear in mind, one of the top ways these companies currently avoid being taxed is to claim they had no profit... because Google France had to spend all it's supposed gains licensing permission to call itself "Google", a trademark of the US company. (Apple, Microsoft, etc. all do the same.)

alkonaut 9y ago

If there is no parent owning the child companies then that should work. But obviously if there is no central parent owner there is no being a “giant” with the benefits that brings. Just breaking a company in 10 parts owned by a parent doesn’t make any difference. Revenue would be counted at the top (or the idea is pointless)