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."
Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to? (Score:4, Insightful)
some are already attacking the idea of taxing a growth industry in the middle of a recession.
What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?
"Hey, we're making lots of profits - don't tax us!"
Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?
"Hey, we're making lots of profits - don't tax us!"
How about the government for once having to do what everyone ELSE has to do in a recession? Do with LESS.
Here is how government works with respect to industry:
If it moves, TAX it.
If it survives, REGULATE it.
If it doesn't survive, SUBSIDIZE it.
I'm not saying that government should stay completely out of business with respect to consumer protection, and workplace safety, but it shouldn't be micromanaging or looking for ways to tax activity multiple times, which is what the UK is trying to do here. Google already pays taxes on earnings from their UK operations. What the government is wanting to do is essentially tax them AGAIN.
This is why international corporations are packing up and moving operations to countries with less regulation and less taxation, and given that with anything that is internet based, you can run it from ANYWHERE, what the UK is doing is encouraging Google to remove any operation from their soil and to lose what revenue they get from them. And I wouldn't blame them for it.
Businesses do not exist to funnel money into politicians coffers, they exist to make money.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just when "Obama Calls for New Curbs on Offshore Tax Havens [nytimes.com]".
Which won't do a damn thing except cause American companies to become foreign companies (ie: change where they are incorporated).
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, this is exactly, what happened to the US car industry over the decades... The last stage is unfolding right now with the government not only subsidizing it itself, but arm-twisting private banks [abcnews.com] into similar subsidizing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure there are significant groups of economists, on either the left or right or in between, who actually think it'd be a good idea for governments to run pro-cyclical fiscal policies. If the government spends more in good times, and less in bad times, it compounds both bubbles and recessions.
Re: (Score:2)
What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?
They may have been thinking along the lines of "don't cause another dot com crash, leave the internet alone, it's a miracle it hasn't gone down with everything else."
On the other hand, I think a twitter tax would be the nail in the coffin for twitter. If it shuts people up about twitter, that might be one of my favorite taxes of all time.
Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to? (Score:5, Funny)
If it shuts people up about twitter, that might be one of my favorite taxes of all time.
If you're so angry about it, why don't you twitter to let people know?
Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?
Any time government gets involved to sort out winners from losers, the result is bad. Better idea is to tax things evenly, and let the winners and losers sort themselves out.
In this case, the fact that the BBC can't find a valid business model isn't Google's fault, and shouldn't be their problem.
Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to? (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC don't need a business model. It's funded by licence fees.
Just not seeing the connection between Google and the BBC myself though...and it isn't as if this would be a hypothecated tax.
Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to? (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is that it is possible now to watch all of the BBC's programming on demand for a week after it is broadcast without having a TV. No TV=no TV license. And the BBC is trying to expand its tax into this new medium.
Actually the Google connection seems excessively tenuous; likely they'll just charge us £200 for the privilege of having a functioning internet connection.
BBC TV (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is that it is possible now to watch all of the BBC's programming on demand for a week after it is broadcast without having a TV. No TV=no TV license. And the BBC is trying to expand its tax into this new medium.
The BBC can easily change that. They just don't upload their shows for free downloads. They can either charge for downloads or stop offering them.
And I say that as an American who loves the BBC. I first got into it, and Pravda-Radio Moscow, in the '80 listening to them on shortwave.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
If they did allow subscription or microtransactions, then that would allow them to open iPlayer more widely. But it would cause TV-licence rebellion here because we'd be paying for the content twice. They'd have to scrap the TV licence. Doesn't sound too bad, but if you try to explain the concept to a BBC employee they look at you as though you've suggested they shag a chicken.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TV Licence is only mandatory for live streams. Evidence here, from Auntie herself [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC don't need a business model. It's funded by licence fees.
Unfortunately, the Beeb doesn't make nearly enough from the licence fee to fund the programming they make (and, some say, to attract the talent they need) - this is why they have to pursue licensing and merchandising deals for the likes of Dr Who and stuff.
Finalleee! (Score:3, Funny)
Gotta love this digital age. for (x=0;xTotalPagesInDatabase;x++) {p:=IndexedPage[x]; if (p.domain=uk) p.pagerank=0;}
Re: (Score:2)
If they're going to tax something, it may as well be parasitic industries like advertising and search engines. It definitely helps that they're foreign so we're not damaging any of our own industries.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Don't tax me, bro!
Oh, I can see the flames rising! (Score:3, Funny)
We love Google and we hate TAX. Dump their ruddy tea overboard!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm, wait, what, who hates tax?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I just hate all taxes.
A truly impressive feat (Score:2)
This government is actually moronic enough to make me wish the Tories were in power.
Taxes have that effect on people (Score:5, Interesting)
This government is actually moronic enough to make me wish the Tories were in power.
On this side of the pond, I was fascinated recently to see the number of tax protests being organized by local elected Democrats. It suited the national media's agenda to portray the tax protests as some kind of right wing/redneck phenomenon, but it was clear to anyone on the ground that it cut across the whole political spectrum.
Re:Taxes have that effect on people (Score:5, Insightful)
(Yes, I said, "our" money. What, you don't think Google will just increase advertising rates to compensate for the tax? You can't tax business. There's no such thing. The cost is always just passed down through the goods that are ultimately purchased by the consumer.)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The Government has been stupid enough to try to spend more and at the same time cut taxes. This implies that they have been spending your money and a little more on state projects (roads account for a large portion of that, and defense). Now they need to cash in on the check you gave them when you voted for their tax cuts.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, so every bit of government spending must be regained in taxes. You can choose not to pay taxes, give up your citizenship and enjoy none of
Re: (Score:2)
Like I say above, deficit spending is the right thing to do during a recession; it's the unpopular step of raising taxes (pissing off the right) and lower spending (pissing off the left) during a boom that is politically more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
The bad thing is that during the previous boom, they did not raise taxes but continued their deficit spending spree. Now the trouble bites.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to raise spending and lower taxes during a recession, take a deficit, and the lower spending and raise taxes during a boom. The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms. I have to blame the right for this: they want all the populist cachet of always-lowering-taxes, but they don't have the balls to actually cut any programs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms.
Yes, and one of those admins, the Clinton admin, shrunk the national deficit he inherited. The Laffer curve [wikipedia.org] illustrates that increasing taxes can actually reduce revenue not increase it. The lower taxes are the higher economic activity is which increases tax revenues.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Taxes have that effect on people (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, people in the US actually show a higher approval rating for their government than they have in years.
Eight years [gallup.com], specifically. The last time a US president's approval rating were as high as Obama's was 100 days into Bush's first term.
Considering how that presidency ended, I'm not sure I'd use that fact as the basis for any pro-Obama argument.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Taxes have that effect on people (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation?
oh, please. Push yourself away from Internet message boards for a day and join the real world.
My wife works for a radio station. She had to cover this as a news story, so she reached out to the organizers of the local protests and found their party affiliation to be pretty much split down the donkey/elephant middle -- especially since we live deep inside a "blue state." Her colleagues at other radio outlets owned by the same corp concurred: not left, not right, just angry people.
But, because it's anti-government, the pro-government shills worked overtime to paint it as some kind of partisan conspiracy. Much the same way the government shills tried to portray the anti-war protests as being manipulated by pro-left media outlets.
Y'know, as scary as the right-wing lockstep horse-blindered jack-booters were under Bush -- and they were pretty scary -- the lefty apologists are shaping up to be no less the fascist tools. I guess, as the man said, "power corrupts."
Backfire? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder what would happen if the entire island was unable to access any search engines.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is enough? Surely they're already taxed for data center/office real estate and utilities, income tax, and probably scores of other taxes that come with running a company with a global presence.
But, since google is US based, most of those taxes probably go to the US gov't
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I thought that California's sales tax was high...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hilarity ensues.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that if Yahoo, MSN etc. are willing to pay the tax they'll gain lots of market-share.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Couldn't Google et al just block the UK instead of paying the tax?
I wonder what would happen if the entire island was unable to access any search engines.
They could just shut down their UK specific service, leaving their users there with the option of google.com.
This would put the UK government in the position of ordering websites that refuse to pay them taxes to be firewalled out of the country. Which would have the effect of cutting them off the internet completely.
Re:Backfire? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what's worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're really needing more money, they should cut massive spending projects that do nothing but violate privacy.
Exactly. It seems that politicians are always under the impression that their citizens have all of this money just laying around and no idea how to use it. Fortunately for us they know exactly how our money would be better spent! Food? Rent? Don't be ridiculous! I'm going to buy you these nifty new CCTV cameras and then build an Internet activity tracking data warehouse. It'll be great! You'll wonder how you could have ever possibly lived without them before. Odd how projects like that march on regardless o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile, here & Clay county they don't have enough money to pay for the public schools. Next school year when a teacher is out, instead of getting a substitute, they will split the class & send them to another teacher's class for the period. Instead of having ~30 kids in a class, the teacher will now have 45+.
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-02-17/story/clay_schools_funding_cut_may_double_to_43_million [jacksonville.com]
But oddly enough Clay County has money to spend on ridiculous billboards for the Cla
Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the current Government has given them plenty of ammunition, so it's quite possible that such an approach being considered. The source, however, can be compared to a news outlet such as Fox News.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently Jonathan Ross made house prices fall and Russell Brand gave Jade Goody cancer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still worth raising hell over, just in case someone does think it's a good idea. This is Labour we're talking about, a government notoriously fond of the shotgun approach to taxation.
I for one, would rather not rely on the good intentions of politicians.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure the Labour government lets leaks like this out on purpose to guage the media and public reaction. If it's ferocious enough they'll say "there were never any official plans for this anyway" and blame the newspapers. Otherwise they try and implement their dumb policies (won't even attempt to name them all, but I'm sure you know some of the few hundred I'm talking about).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly the secret of the Daily Mail hit-pieces, too. "Considering" is such a vague word, as is "ministers." What it could mean is that some little old lady from their constituency wrote a letter to their PM, the PM responded, politely, that they were "considering" their suggestion, and *boom*, the Daily Hate makes it sound like the legislation is on the way.
For those who think this keeps the "gummint" in line: what if we did this to corporations. "Oil industry executives are considering using human
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, Minister"
Re: (Score:2)
Google for google's tax position. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tax avoidance isn't evil, or even illegal. Evasion is a different issue.
But.. (Score:2)
So I don't have to pay if I were Brittish?
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.
A Conservative proposing new Taxes?! Madness! (Score:2)
What kind of bizzaro-land is this, where the Conservatives are proposing new taxes? I thought that was strictly the realm of the Liberals!
Re:A Conservative proposing new Taxes?! Madness! (Score:4, Funny)
It's called Europe. Where liberals are conservatives and conservatives are liberals.
Why Not Just Advertising? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why specify online advertising? Why not tax advertising in general?
Advertising is hypothetically good because it increases the quality of information available to the consumer to make purchasing decisions. In practice, it typically does the opposite -- creating artificial demand -- particularly in industries like medicine and law where it is more difficult for the customer to be informed. It still serves a purpose, but it does have a negative external cost to society in reducing the quality of purchasing decisions. So, recapture that external cost the same way we recapture the external cost of pollution. A tax is a way to offset the negative externality.
More simple option; just remove advertising from deductible expenses.
See Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [wikipedia.org]
Disclaimer: I work in the advertising industry, and a tax on advertising like I propose would actually hurt the company I work for. So, selfishly, I'd rather you ignore the rational basis for this post.
So long, London.. nice knowing you! (Score:2)
Is it just me, or do I get the funny feeling the UK will be nullrouted out of our existence Real Soon Now (tm) ?
It seems like every day, they come up with a new, dumber idea that harkens back to the turn of the century... back when the UK actually mattered in the global political arena. Today they're just a funny little piece of history, stuck in the past and fighting the future.
Re: (Score:2)
would google pay them? (Score:2)
But, if Google just moves out of the UK (if they are even there at the moment) what would make them pay the tax at all? I'd move out just to show them how shortsighted and stupid they were...
Don't make them angry (Score:3, Interesting)
One year from now. Somewhere in the UK.
"I just googled for that new BBC show and got no hits..."
Your application for Statehood is accepted (Score:2)
Dear UK,
In the USA, one of our states, New Mexico, only allowed the sale of lottery tickets under provision that a portion goes to the local horse racers and horse tracks - can't lose that gambling money. In another, Texas, they're trying to tax satellite TV because it costs less than cable and that's just unfair.
As soon as we heard that you're taxing Google to subsidize the BBC, your application was automatically generated and submitted to committee for review. Granted, you sort of fell through a logic l
Seriously...its about time.... (Score:2)
I was wondering what took so long, the brits are best at what they do, and what they do is TAX!
If I were to go over the history of taxation, you would see that for par, the brits hold the title for the most taxed items around....only to be outdone by the most creative taxing system, which falls unto New York State, for having a tax for fuel inefficiency AND for fuel efficiency...
ie- if you have a smart car and DONT use up gas, we have to tax you....!!!!
I tend to wonder, why Google though, or is this a searc
uh yeah... (Score:2)
This is in fact an entirely reasonable proposal... (Score:5, Funny)
The way the BBC is funded is magnificent and the envy of the world. You can see this from the awed comments here and in other places. That said, like all magnificent things, it is still capable of improvements, and we in New Labour are always anxious to improve life in Britain. We usually do this by thinking things through.
In the present case, we notice that the way the BBC is funded is that everyone who watches any sort of TV, whether he or she watches the BBC or not, is obliged under penalty of fines and jail to subscribe to the BBC. This as we say is magnificent and the envy of the world. We understand that the US is considering the same way of funding GM. Anyone who buys a car will be obliged to donate a sum, probably 10% or so of the value of their purchase, to GM, whether they buy a GM car or not. But we digress. Well actually the same model is under consideration in Belgium, where Del Haize is to get a contribution from everyone who wants to buy groceries, which will be most people. We must move on though. But first can we just say that everyone is doing this, we lead the world, they are all following our example.
Anyway, great as the BBC and its funding model are, after long thought, we realize that yes, we can do better. How?
Well, the BBC operates web sites. Clearly, anyone who uses any sort of web site should be obliged to subscribe, or at least pay something, to the BBC. Therefore, we are going to have a tax on Internet use, some or all of whose proceeds will go to the BBC, for it to operate its public service web sites.
Do you see now how reasonable this is? That's good, we thought you would.
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There will be no plans to impose new taxes until just before they are imposed.
Don't be silly, why would someone tax a successful business to support an unprofitable one? That wouldn't make sense.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Funny)
I am just going to whoosh myself...
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: (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.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
While not another paper covering the same story, this does lend some weight to it.
Despite its former reputation as a newspaper of record, The Times is now- and has been for almost 30 years- a Murdoch-owned rag.
This is a man who, going by all available evidence, does not- and has never- believed in, stood for or supported *anything* that isn't in his own business interest.
Murdoch certainly isn't overly bothered about journalistic integrity, and he has been quite happy to repeatedly use one part of his business empire to promote or defend another; and The Times certainly hasn't been immune to this.
If The Times were to run an article attacking the BBC it would hardly be surprising- they've long been one of Murdoch's most consistent pet hates, mainly due to them standing in the way of his UK broadcasting ambition.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Tea?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the bankers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is there nothing they WON'T go after?
Actual problems.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if they'll ever realize that control is as much an illusion as freedom is?
There has GOT to be a better way to do things than to tax the living daylights out of everything.
Re: (Score:2)
No. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
MP's expenses...
It's a matter of national security y'know.. The kind of bath plug a minister chooses, or the type of porn her hubby/advisor prefers on their pay per view is vital information that could be of use to terrorists!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
growth (Score:2)
Growth industries, by definition, are those that can afford higher taxes.
Goreth industries grow because they don't have government breathing down their backs, that or they actually receive taxpayer money from the government.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it makes a profit- it will pay a tax.
Hmmmm.
That doesn't work- they go after things that don't make a profit too.
Is there nothing they will go after? (Score:3)
Depending on who "they" are. Socialists don't like businesses making a profit whereas others want to dictate people's personal lives.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say NO to Tax.
They'll use this as an excuse to do it the first time and then it'll stay on come hell or high water. The only way to get rid of a tax is through revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
why should advertizers pay tax to BBC? (Score:2)
Why would Google, or any other advertiser, pay taxes to fund a public broadcast station? I don't see other commercial advertisers doing this (note, I'm not from the UK)
I disagree with advertizers such as Google paying a tax for the BBC, but everybody that owns a TV in the UK has to pay a yearly TV tax that goes to the BBC. I don't want to give anyone an idea, but to keep with this line a tax would be on ISPs not advertizers.
Falcon