UK Possibly Exploring "Google Tax" 312
The UK government is considering proposals that could hit Google and other search engines with an online advertising tax to help boost revenue for the BBC. While these proposals are still in their infancy, some are already attacking the idea of taxing a growth industry in the middle of a recession. "Sources say the proposed taxes have been discussed by officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They would also have to be approved by the Treasury before they could be introduced. The chair of the culture, media and sport committee, Conservative MP John Whittingdale, dismissed what he called a 'windfall tax' on search engines."
Reality Check (Score:5, Informative)
* This is the Daily Mail - a notoriously unpleasant and right-wing newspaper which leaps at any chance to run "shock horror" stories about things like this even if they aren't actually necessarily 100% true, because it sells newspapers to their target market (right-wing anti-government types).
* The Daily Mail doesn't like the BBC either.
* "Ministers are considering" is generally code for "Someone suggested this in passing". It doesn't mean at all that there's any actual policy there or anything else. Hell, it might just mean someone talked to someone in the pub who suggested it in passing.
In summary, take this story with a pinch of salt. It might become a more concrete proposal at some point in the future, but I think that'd be unlikely.
Google for google's tax position. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Doubletaxing? (Score:3, Informative)
Prepare your pinch of salt... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a story from the Daily Mail, a rag that makes Fox news look like quality journalism, a notorious hater of the BBC, and a supporter of the Conservative party (the current opposition).
Also, the story is based almost entirely on quotes from a member of the opposition.
So while I'm no fan of the current government (oh how I wish they would just give up and resign), this is almost certainly not what it appears.
It is pretty common for civil servants to come up with a bunch of ideas, most of which fail the giggle test or a chucked out almost immediately, but are included to that they can say they considered the options thoroughly.
This idea only just passes the giggle test and has probably been discounted, but is being revived by the opposition and the Daily Fail to help stir up their frothy-mouthed readers.
Not news (Score:5, Informative)
The article is from the Daily Mail, hardly a good source. For instance: "It is thought, however, that the money, supposedly earmarked for broadband services, would also go to boost public service broadcasters."
Translation: The Daily Mail wanted an anti-BBC headline to support their political stance, so they made shit up.
The last sentence in the article is the most useful: "A spokesman for the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform said: 'There are no plans to impose new taxes.'"
Get back to me when a real newspaper has an article on this.
moving corporate headquarters (Score:3, Informative)
This is why international corporations are packing up and moving operations to countries with less regulation and less taxation
Just when "Obama Calls for New Curbs on Offshore Tax Havens [nytimes.com]".
Falcon
Re:Google for google's tax position. (Score:3, Informative)
Tax avoidance isn't evil, or even illegal. Evasion is a different issue.
Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to? (Score:3, Informative)
TV Licence is only mandatory for live streams. Evidence here, from Auntie herself [bbc.co.uk].
Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Taxes have that effect on people (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is it "Not News"? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, let's take a look.
They've consistently reported anti-BBC headlines in the past and were largely responsible in bringing up the Sachsgate scandal from a mere bad-taste joke to an issue that led to the resignation of two senior members of the BBC and a suspension of the third.
The problems go deeper than that, however. I point you to Mail Watch [mailwatch.co.uk], a website which does well to expose the figure massaging, lazy journalism and (at times) utter lies of the Mail's journalists and editors. For example, they recently ran a story about how a 'hacker had infiltrated a Home Office' web site when, in reality [mailwatch.co.uk], an external site linked to from the Home Office's web site had had its domain registration expire and bought up by speculators, who hosted some dodgy images on there. It also overstates immigration figures, and employs Richard Littlejohn, who is a cunt [jamesomalley.co.uk].
They also pander to their audiences regularly: for example, they have been caught campaigning both for AND against the HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine [layscience.net] in different nations.
In short, even though the idea of a 'search engine tax' is laughable, the Daily Mail is in no way deserving of your trust. Q.E.D.
Re:Why is it "Not News"? (Score:3, Informative)
The Telegraph is often called the Torygraph, because it supports the Conservative Party.
The Daily Mail is sometimes called the Daily Wail or the Daily Heil, and its political leanings are more towards the BNP.