10 ms·

"Britain and France have been among the most vocal proponents of proposals to tax big" This is kind of surprising in case of Britain. As long as I remember bot

"Britain and France have been among the most vocal proponents of proposals to tax big" This is kind of surprising in case of Britain. As long as I remember both Cayman islands and City of London, two of the best known tax havens, are British territories so Britain could prevent tax evasion easily. When it comes to "taxing" those pesky Facebooks and Netflix globally, I am not sure I understand justification for this. Companies pay taxes because they use resources and services provided in a given country (roads and other infrastructure, police protection, courts, etc.). Facebook does not use any resources in, say, Belgium, so why it should be taxed there? If a company located in US, like Facebook, avoids paying taxes there (strange that someone who pretends to be rather left leaning person like FB owner escapes taxes, but that's a different story) it is the US problem, not a global problem and they should sort this out somehow - for instance make FB to pay directly for services/resources provided by the state, maybe in the global economy corporate tax does not make much sense any more? I can imagine that Facebook has some fake office on Caymans, but I hardly believe they would relocate there data centers and employees to avoid taxes, so making tax proportional to number of employees in the given jurisdiction, size of the office, used electricity, etc. might make sense.

nicoburns 7y ago
> Companies pay taxes because they use resources and services provided in a given country (roads and other infrastructure, police protection, courts, etc.). That's one view. Another is that they pay taxes simply because they have resources that society needs. If Facebook is trading in the UK (benefitting from access to the UK market, then I think it is reasonable that they pay tax in the UK).
- wrong_variable 7y ago
  What about David Cameron, Beckham ... Every rich person in the UK is incorporated in British overseas territory. Shouldn't they be the first to be taxed ?
  - notahacker 7y ago
    David and Victoria Beckham paid £12.7m tax in the last year. Facebook, which collected £1.3bn in UK sales, paid £15m...
- arcbyte 7y ago
  > they pay taxes simply because they have resources that society needs That is called theft, is not a view of any kind, and the prevention of which is literally the reason "society" was formed in the first place
  - scrps 7y ago
    So is enjoying the benefits of society without paying into it. If you don't want to pay to maintain a stable society don't cry when it comes crumbling down.
    - throwayEngineer 7y ago
      That's simple..how many times has a state caused it's own anarchy/civil war through politics or corruption?
      - ionised 7y ago
        There a few places you can go with no little to no government if that's what you prefer. I guarantee you'll be crying to come home in short order though.
        trevyn 7y ago
        One can also live with minimal personal government interference in high-government jurisdictions. Most of our chains are in our mind, of our own creation.
    - arcbyte 7y ago
      I love paying to maintain a stable society. There are many players involved in stable societies, governments being a tiny one. I dont enjoy paying the organization I participate in solely to avoid theft by others turning around and committing theft against me with the very liberties and money I gave up to it to avoid this outcome. That's just overreach by simple, short sighted people.
      - 7y ago
panpanna 7y ago
I think the problem is that sometimes the seller and buyer are both from country A but the sales is registred under company X in country B. Company X is normally not Facebook, but they are trying really hard to change that. Examples of X: MrJet and Trivago.
oaiey 7y ago
Company pay taxes because societies a.k.a. countries say so. Taxes are not a business dealing in kind of you give this, they give you that. Countries do not need a rationale for taxes as long as they stay consistent in their law. Basically, France could charge a tax on Alaskian fish. The only problem is usually: why the hack the Alaskian company should pay. But for our global companies the situation is different: when they want to charge someone in France for services, then France has a way to collect :).
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Countries do not need a rationale for taxes as long as they stay consistent in their law Legally speaking, sure. Morally speaking, it's not so clear. Wars have been started because the rulers subscribed too heavily to your line of reasoning. Being taxed into oblivion is generally considered a damn good reason to kick out the current government, peacefully at first but violently if necessary. While I don't think Britain and France are anywhere near a breaking point with respect to taxes it's worth remembering that a breaking point exists.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    Taxing Google and Facebook is not pushing British or French population closer to that breaking point.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Costs get passed on to buyers and eventually to consumers. They might get diluted along the way but they do get passed on.
      - nolok 7y ago
        ... Except you then realize that in Google and Facebook's case the end user you think of is not the customer/consumer those costs will be passed on. EDIT: downvoting me doesn't change the fact that those 2 don't make their money by charging you and me their users, they charge advertisers who want to show us ads and get our data. If a cost needs to be passed on, it will be passed on them.
coldtea 7y ago
>* If a company located in US, like Facebook, avoids paying taxes there (strange that someone who pretends to be rather left leaning person like FB owner escapes taxes, but that's a different story) it is the US problem, not a global problem and they should sort this out somehow - for instance make FB to pay directly for services/resources provided by the state, maybe in the global economy corporate tax does not make much sense any more?* Doesn't have to use services/resources. It can just pay a tax for the privilege of operating in the country.
captainbland 7y ago
The resources these technology firms are exploiting in, e.g. Belgium, include user data and network infrastructure - the latter in particular is often very highly publicly subsidised so if a company is seen as benefitting from it disproportionately then it's unsurprising that people think they should be taxed for taking advantage of it.
norswap 7y ago
I think the commonly held doxa is that company should pay (some of their) taxes where they make profit. In the case of sales this would be more clear cut. But Facebook profits from user in a country through ads, which do not necessarily need to be purchased in that country. It's just that these things antecedes the internet and the omnipresence of digital goods and services.

nicoburns 7y ago

> Companies pay taxes because they use resources and services provided in a given country (roads and other infrastructure, police protection, courts, etc.). That's one view. Another is that they pay taxes simply because they have resources that society needs. If Facebook is trading in the UK (benefitting from access to the UK market, then I think it is reasonable that they pay tax in the UK).

wrong_variable 7y ago
What about David Cameron, Beckham ... Every rich person in the UK is incorporated in British overseas territory. Shouldn't they be the first to be taxed ?
- notahacker 7y ago
  David and Victoria Beckham paid £12.7m tax in the last year. Facebook, which collected £1.3bn in UK sales, paid £15m...
arcbyte 7y ago
> they pay taxes simply because they have resources that society needs That is called theft, is not a view of any kind, and the prevention of which is literally the reason "society" was formed in the first place
- scrps 7y ago
  So is enjoying the benefits of society without paying into it. If you don't want to pay to maintain a stable society don't cry when it comes crumbling down.
  - throwayEngineer 7y ago
    That's simple..how many times has a state caused it's own anarchy/civil war through politics or corruption?
    - ionised 7y ago
      There a few places you can go with no little to no government if that's what you prefer. I guarantee you'll be crying to come home in short order though.
      - trevyn 7y ago
        One can also live with minimal personal government interference in high-government jurisdictions. Most of our chains are in our mind, of our own creation.
  - arcbyte 7y ago
    I love paying to maintain a stable society. There are many players involved in stable societies, governments being a tiny one. I dont enjoy paying the organization I participate in solely to avoid theft by others turning around and committing theft against me with the very liberties and money I gave up to it to avoid this outcome. That's just overreach by simple, short sighted people.
    - 7y ago

panpanna 7y ago

I think the problem is that sometimes the seller and buyer are both from country A but the sales is registred under company X in country B. Company X is normally not Facebook, but they are trying really hard to change that. Examples of X: MrJet and Trivago.

oaiey 7y ago

Company pay taxes because societies a.k.a. countries say so. Taxes are not a business dealing in kind of you give this, they give you that. Countries do not need a rationale for taxes as long as they stay consistent in their law. Basically, France could charge a tax on Alaskian fish. The only problem is usually: why the hack the Alaskian company should pay. But for our global companies the situation is different: when they want to charge someone in France for services, then France has a way to collect :).

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Countries do not need a rationale for taxes as long as they stay consistent in their law Legally speaking, sure. Morally speaking, it's not so clear. Wars have been started because the rulers subscribed too heavily to your line of reasoning. Being taxed into oblivion is generally considered a damn good reason to kick out the current government, peacefully at first but violently if necessary. While I don't think Britain and France are anywhere near a breaking point with respect to taxes it's worth remembering that a breaking point exists.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  Taxing Google and Facebook is not pushing British or French population closer to that breaking point.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Costs get passed on to buyers and eventually to consumers. They might get diluted along the way but they do get passed on.
    - nolok 7y ago
      ... Except you then realize that in Google and Facebook's case the end user you think of is not the customer/consumer those costs will be passed on. EDIT: downvoting me doesn't change the fact that those 2 don't make their money by charging you and me their users, they charge advertisers who want to show us ads and get our data. If a cost needs to be passed on, it will be passed on them.

coldtea 7y ago

>* If a company located in US, like Facebook, avoids paying taxes there (strange that someone who pretends to be rather left leaning person like FB owner escapes taxes, but that's a different story) it is the US problem, not a global problem and they should sort this out somehow - for instance make FB to pay directly for services/resources provided by the state, maybe in the global economy corporate tax does not make much sense any more?* Doesn't have to use services/resources. It can just pay a tax for the privilege of operating in the country.

captainbland 7y ago

The resources these technology firms are exploiting in, e.g. Belgium, include user data and network infrastructure - the latter in particular is often very highly publicly subsidised so if a company is seen as benefitting from it disproportionately then it's unsurprising that people think they should be taxed for taking advantage of it.

norswap 7y ago

I think the commonly held doxa is that company should pay (some of their) taxes where they make profit. In the case of sales this would be more clear cut. But Facebook profits from user in a country through ads, which do not necessarily need to be purchased in that country. It's just that these things antecedes the internet and the omnipresence of digital goods and services.