UK government plans 'Digital Services Tax' applied against Apple and other tech giants

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,747member
    JWSC said:
    As some of you might have heard there’s this thing called Brexit going on at the moment so this move has little to do with the E.U. and alledged Irish tax shelters.  The taxes collected will be local to the U.K. and not shared with any European government.

    This new tax is probably not a bad thing as the U.K. is going to need all the help it can get once Brexit is complete.  As U.K. businesses begin to feel the detrimental effects of additional costs of trade with the E.U., Her Majesty’s Government will experience significant revenue decline.
    It has nothing to do with Brexit, it’s just about tax eaters being always hungry. It is effectively an additional VAT on digital transaction as a way of propping up physical store transactions for the politicans’ masters. 

    as for  Brexit, I expect things will get tough for a short period as markets change, with winners and losers. Ultimately though Britain will forge new trade arrangements with other countries to its benefit, free of the shackles of continental agendas.  For example, true FTAs, education and visa deals with countries like the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be quite straight forward, desirable by the citizens of all these countries. I suspect even the EU will seriously consider such after Brexit, but sure as hell won’t prior. It will do all it can to punish The UK as a lesson to others.
    seanj
  • Reply 22 of 42
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,627member
    T.j.p. said:
    All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.
    Without a doubt. 

    The members of the UK government are amongst the biggest tax avoiders in the country. 
  • Reply 23 of 42
    Give them a chance and they'll figure out a way to tax the air and sun.
    designr
  • Reply 24 of 42
    Government does not create, therefore it must take by force. 
    SpamSandwichdesignr
  • Reply 25 of 42
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,596member
    hentaiboy said:
    Apple has since paid the entire 13.1 billion euro ($15.3 billion) balance, as well as 1.2 billion euro in interest, into an escrow account controlled by the Irish government”.

    Is Apple still showing that money on its balance sheet? If not, when did it take the hit on operating profits?
    its comes off the balance sheet, they are already reported it as a profit years ago. Their balance sheet most likely show the money as an asset and it is offset by the tax liability. so it most likely showing as net zero to the overall balance sheet. As soon as Apple knew they had the possibility of this liability they had to setup an offsetting accrued liability just in case it had to be paid out and they was probably done years ago.
  • Reply 26 of 42
    nhtnht Posts: 4,487member
    tylersdad said:
    "Claw?"

    Bad choice of words.

    tylersdad said:
    T.j.p. said:
    All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.
    Exactly. Businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do. That's why these various targeted taxes do nothing but hurt consumers. For instance, in WA state, there's a ballot initiative that would charge energy companies a "carbon fee", ostensibly to create a fund that would be used to pay for clean energy initiatives in the state. It's an indirect tax on WA state rate payers, since energy companies will simply raise rates to pay for it.

    Sadly, the vast majority of the electorate seems to be illiterate and has no basic understanding of economics or business. So, it will likely pass.

    Thank goodness the majority of the electorate understands more about economics than you do. Please look up "negative externality."

    The carbon tax puts a price on polluting - one that's still far lower than what it actually costs everyone. That's one of the basic functions of taxes: encouraging/discouraging desirable behaviors.
    I understand the concept of "negative externality" quite well. The fact remains. Energy companies will not pay for this new "fee". Their customers will. And that's my biggest issue with this proposal. If the proposal were written honestly, it would charge rate payers, not energy companies. After all, energy companies only pollute so that they may provide energy to their customers. No customers. No pollution. It's pretty simple. 

    But, just like the ACA, it can't be written that way because the majority of rate payers would not knowingly vote to increase their power bills by $10-$20 per month...which is the estimated downstream impact to rate payers. 
    Your assumption is that the energy tax won't change behavior at both the power generation level and the power use level.

    If it make solar more economically desireable than that's good for the country...not from an tree hugging perspective but from a self-resilience perspective.  If every house could do some level of power generation then, assuming the roof still exists, each home is more self-sufficient when stuff goes bad...whether that's a natural event or a an attack on US infrastructure.  That means less dead people, faster recovery and less cost for everyone including me because everyone's taxes goes toward disaster relief.

    If folks use a little less power by adding insulation or using less energy hungry devices that results in the same standard of living that's also good.  It means less power infrastructure needs to be built to support growth.

    And energy companies can find power generation capabilities that pollute less and avoid this tax (if the law was written correctly anyway) giving them a cost competitive advantage vs competitors.  If there are any competitors.

    And making the environment cleaner is also good.  Nobody wants more pollution.
    edited October 2018
  • Reply 27 of 42
    nht said:
    tylersdad said:
    "Claw?"

    Bad choice of words.

    tylersdad said:
    T.j.p. said:
    All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.
    Exactly. Businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do. That's why these various targeted taxes do nothing but hurt consumers. For instance, in WA state, there's a ballot initiative that would charge energy companies a "carbon fee", ostensibly to create a fund that would be used to pay for clean energy initiatives in the state. It's an indirect tax on WA state rate payers, since energy companies will simply raise rates to pay for it.

    Sadly, the vast majority of the electorate seems to be illiterate and has no basic understanding of economics or business. So, it will likely pass.

    Thank goodness the majority of the electorate understands more about economics than you do. Please look up "negative externality."

    The carbon tax puts a price on polluting - one that's still far lower than what it actually costs everyone. That's one of the basic functions of taxes: encouraging/discouraging desirable behaviors.
    I understand the concept of "negative externality" quite well. The fact remains. Energy companies will not pay for this new "fee". Their customers will. And that's my biggest issue with this proposal. If the proposal were written honestly, it would charge rate payers, not energy companies. After all, energy companies only pollute so that they may provide energy to their customers. No customers. No pollution. It's pretty simple. 

    But, just like the ACA, it can't be written that way because the majority of rate payers would not knowingly vote to increase their power bills by $10-$20 per month...which is the estimated downstream impact to rate payers. 
    Your assumption is that the energy tax won't change behavior at both the power generation level and the power use level.

    If it make solar more economically desireable than that's good for the country...not from an tree hugging perspective but from a self-resilience perspective.  If every house could do some level of power generation then, assuming the roof still exists, each home is more self-sufficient when stuff goes bad...whether that's a natural event or a an attack on US infrastructure.  That means less dead people, faster recovery and less cost for everyone including me because everyone's taxes goes toward disaster relief.

    If folks use a little less power by adding insulation or using less energy hungry devices that results in the same standard of living that's also good.  It means less power infrastructure needs to be built to support growth.

    And energy companies can find power generation capabilities that pollute less and avoid this tax (if the law was written correctly anyway) giving them a cost competitive advantage vs competitors.  If there are any competitors.

    And making the environment cleaner is also good.  Nobody wants more pollution.
    Solar won't be more desirable until the prices come down AND the lifetime of the panels increases. Right now they need to be replaced right about the time you have them paid off.

    No thanks.
  • Reply 28 of 42
    nht said:
    tylersdad said:
    "Claw?"

    Bad choice of words.

    tylersdad said:
    T.j.p. said:
    All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.
    Exactly. Businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do. That's why these various targeted taxes do nothing but hurt consumers. For instance, in WA state, there's a ballot initiative that would charge energy companies a "carbon fee", ostensibly to create a fund that would be used to pay for clean energy initiatives in the state. It's an indirect tax on WA state rate payers, since energy companies will simply raise rates to pay for it.

    Sadly, the vast majority of the electorate seems to be illiterate and has no basic understanding of economics or business. So, it will likely pass.

    Thank goodness the majority of the electorate understands more about economics than you do. Please look up "negative externality."

    The carbon tax puts a price on polluting - one that's still far lower than what it actually costs everyone. That's one of the basic functions of taxes: encouraging/discouraging desirable behaviors.
    I understand the concept of "negative externality" quite well. The fact remains. Energy companies will not pay for this new "fee". Their customers will. And that's my biggest issue with this proposal. If the proposal were written honestly, it would charge rate payers, not energy companies. After all, energy companies only pollute so that they may provide energy to their customers. No customers. No pollution. It's pretty simple. 

    But, just like the ACA, it can't be written that way because the majority of rate payers would not knowingly vote to increase their power bills by $10-$20 per month...which is the estimated downstream impact to rate payers. 

    If it make solar more economically desireable than that's good for the country...not from an tree hugging perspective but from a self-resilience perspective.  If every house could do some level of power generation then, assuming the roof still exists, each home is more self-sufficient when stuff goes bad...whether that's a natural event or a an attack on US infrastructure.  That means less dead people, faster recovery and less cost for everyone including me because everyone's taxes goes toward disaster....


    And I suppose these solar panels will just magically appear on roofs, without being produced by leaving behind cesspools of environmentally deadly sludge. As will those batteries to go with it, so that the kids can study, or the refrigerator and the factory run, at night: these things will just also appear out of nowhere, leaving no detritus behind. And they’ll last forever.

    All funded by taxes on reliable, inexpensive energy that other people — especially the poor — will pay so that these boondoggles can be subsidized for the oh-so virtuous.
    edited October 2018 tylersdad
  • Reply 29 of 42
    This is just a silly sales tax (the most regressive form of taxes, since it hits the less well-off the hardest). On their own citizens. 

    And the US will retaliate by imposing taxes on sales of EU companies. Way to go!
  • Reply 30 of 42
    Ok for the benefit of the non-Brits here, this is how taxes work in the U.K.

    Goods such as iPhones are levied with a sales tax at purchase called Value Added Tax (VAT). This is based on a percentage of the value of the item.

    Any business trading in the U.K. also has to pay Corporation Tax, which a percentage of any profits they make trading in the U.K.
    Now this measure is aimed at companies like Amazon, who sell things to UK consumers, from their U.K. registered website, and shipped from their U.K. warehouses, but which are billed from Amazon Luxembourg.
    (Luxembourg it’s a scrap of wasteland in Central Europe used as a tax haven).

    Similarly with Google’s and Facebook’s advertising profits which are banked in other one-horse pseudo-countries.
    (Starbucks was another company that made headlines last year for moving its profits to other countries to dodge tax.)

    This tax is just temporary until a global instituted tax is agreed by all countries to prevent tax dodging. It’s currently under negotiation at the moment.
  • Reply 31 of 42
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    T.j.p. said:
    All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.
    Ya, I find it funny when these Government idiots thing it's just a tax on the Corporation. NOPE!!! Corporations don't pay taxes. Well they pay them, but out of YOUR pocket. That 2% tax is going right onto the user. If 2% is a start, why not a 50% Tax and just get it over with. Because YOU'LL bve paying it, not Apple, Not Google, Not Amazon, Not any other corporation. YOU just really Taxed yourself out of some more money. Prices will go up to cover any tax.
  • Reply 32 of 42
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    rune66 said:
    T.j.p. said:
    All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.
    Well in a way your'e probably right but this also shows that Apple has established a de factor monopoly condition where they can charge overprices for their products. Ideally the market should see to that a company with so steep profits as Apple can't just protect their extreme profits by adding new price increases
    Well for one thing, Apple is not a Monopoly. They only have about 20% of the global market. Apple also doesn't have a search engine. Apple can sell their products at whatever price they want to. This isn't Venezuela, price fixing products and then having nothing to sell. Apple can set the price they want, and you can pay or not pay it. The same will go with every other company who will jack up prices to cover the new unfair tax. Or any other tax for that matter. Apple doesn't have Extreme profits. Apple has normal, good profits like any company should. Just because Android has been a race to the bottom in profits and company's are making very little money too breaking even or losing money, that's not Apple's problem.

    Like always Corporations don't pay taxes. They pass those taxes right on over to YOU. For all I care, go tax Apple and the others 20%. They won't be paying that, YOU will. I don't understand why people don't understand this. It's like, Ooohhhhh, we have to tax that evil company, like Big Oil. They're EVIL. Great you taxed them, your gas prices go up and don't drop down to what they used to be. They're not paying it, You are in higher gas prices. Really, all that's doing is hurting the poor person even more.

    Apple 100% can increase costs to whatever they want. They have every right to do so. Hell Apple's new iPhones are more expensive than ever. Apple already adjusts prices of Apps and other things in their store for the country. Do you think the App developers want s 2% cut in pay because of UK taxes? Hell no!!!! Prices will go up to make up the difference. They will for Apple, they will for Google and everyone else. You're a fool to think otherwise.
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 33 of 42
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    seankill said:
    Apple, generally speaking, is a liberal company with liberal views. It’s only fair that they pay to support their agenda which pushes for the richest (companies included) to reallocate to those below them. 

    Disclaimer: I do not identify with either party. 
    The problem is, they tell you to Do what they say, not do as they do. So while Apple may be liberal, they still answer to the Stock Holders. Company's, Corporations, don't pay taxes. As in it doesn't come out of the money they make. Nope, they just bump up prices and YOU are the one really paying the taxes. Why people don't understand thing. It's just another tax on yourself.
    tylersdad
  • Reply 34 of 42
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,134member
    tylersdad said:
    T.j.p. said:
    All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.
    Exactly. Businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do. That's why these various targeted taxes do nothing but hurt consumers. For instance, in WA state, there's a ballot initiative that would charge energy companies a "carbon fee", ostensibly to create a fund that would be used to pay for clean energy initiatives in the state. It's an indirect tax on WA state rate payers, since energy companies will simply raise rates to pay for it.

    Sadly, the vast majority of the electorate seems to be illiterate and has no basic understanding of economics or business. So, it will likely pass.
    You're exactly right!!!! You have suckers that pass BONDS the state can't afford. Then they do dumb things like this to get money. See these politicians know they can't just go, Hey we need to raise the taxes to pay for all the crap we want to spend money on. Who wants to vote YES on that?

    Instead, they go, hey, we walk to tax that evil company that makes all this money. You go, Hell ya, lets get them evil company's that don't pay their fair share. Go Tax them for whatever you want. In this case, a dumb Carbon Fee!!! I'll bet you it goes right into the General Fund also. Clean Energy Initiatives? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, and the people will fall for it, and then the company's will demand a bump in the cost of service and be granted it, like the Electric Company. You bill will go up. So you really taxed yourself. The Politicians know this. This is how you raise taxes. You do it the round about way. You get those EVIL company's and bring in more money, and you didn't raise taxes on the people. You look good!!!! HAHAHAHAHA, SUCKERS!!!!!!

    You're right, people will vote YES for it. It works!!!!! Just look here at the people who actually think Apple and others will be paying for that 2% tax. Nope!!!! It'll get passed because they are doing the same thing. Tax those rich, evil American company's 2% for their fair share. In reality it's just another 2% tax increase on YOU the population. The suckers that will be paying it. You just taxed yourself without realizing it. The Politicians in the UK now look good and will get voted back into office once again. They didn't tax YOU, they taxed the EVIL Big American Corporations. Vote for me!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA, it's beyond funny, yet it effects me also with higher costs. Which is really higher taxes. It works so well. People would go up in arms and revolt if they really figured out how much they are really paying in taxes adding it all up. How many months you have to work just to pay all your taxes.
    edited October 2018
  • Reply 35 of 42
    steven n. said:
    I guess if you can't fix arcane tax laws and create an environment conducive to innovation, create new taxes targeting countries that foster innovation.
    What?!
    JWSC
  • Reply 36 of 42
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 444member
    nht said:
    tylersdad said:
    "Claw?"

    Bad choice of words.

    tylersdad said:
    T.j.p. said:
    All that will happen is Apple products will cost 2+% more rounded up to the next marketable price. Who pays this tax? People who buy Apple products, not Apple. The UK is wanting more money from its citizens. They know Apple will raise prices to cover this cost.
    Exactly. Businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers do. That's why these various targeted taxes do nothing but hurt consumers. For instance, in WA state, there's a ballot initiative that would charge energy companies a "carbon fee", ostensibly to create a fund that would be used to pay for clean energy initiatives in the state. It's an indirect tax on WA state rate payers, since energy companies will simply raise rates to pay for it.

    Sadly, the vast majority of the electorate seems to be illiterate and has no basic understanding of economics or business. So, it will likely pass.

    Thank goodness the majority of the electorate understands more about economics than you do. Please look up "negative externality."

    The carbon tax puts a price on polluting - one that's still far lower than what it actually costs everyone. That's one of the basic functions of taxes: encouraging/discouraging desirable behaviors.
    I understand the concept of "negative externality" quite well. The fact remains. Energy companies will not pay for this new "fee". Their customers will. And that's my biggest issue with this proposal. If the proposal were written honestly, it would charge rate payers, not energy companies. After all, energy companies only pollute so that they may provide energy to their customers. No customers. No pollution. It's pretty simple. 

    But, just like the ACA, it can't be written that way because the majority of rate payers would not knowingly vote to increase their power bills by $10-$20 per month...which is the estimated downstream impact to rate payers. 
    Your assumption is that the energy tax won't change behavior at both the power generation level and the power use level.

    If it make solar more economically desireable than that's good for the country...not from an tree hugging perspective but from a self-resilience perspective.  If every house could do some level of power generation then, assuming the roof still exists, each home is more self-sufficient when stuff goes bad...whether that's a natural event or a an attack on US infrastructure.  That means less dead people, faster recovery and less cost for everyone including me because everyone's taxes goes toward disaster relief.

    If folks use a little less power by adding insulation or using less energy hungry devices that results in the same standard of living that's also good.  It means less power infrastructure needs to be built to support growth.

    And energy companies can find power generation capabilities that pollute less and avoid this tax (if the law was written correctly anyway) giving them a cost competitive advantage vs competitors.  If there are any competitors.

    And making the environment cleaner is also good.  Nobody wants more pollution.

    An energy tax on ‘big bad oil’ is unlikely to change where people get their energy from if the low taxes or subsidized energy source can’t produce the energy we need.  It will only make heating and cooling unaffordable for the poor.

    I live in sun soaked Arizona and I have a PV solar system on my roof.  For me personally it’s great. On most days my system puts out around 8 KWhs during peak hours.  The system pushes a lot of energy back into the grid during the day for which I am paid at the grandfathered rate.  I make out like a bandit!  Not so for others who missed the great government sponsored subsidy.  But even without the subsidy PV solar will pay off slowly, if you can afford the initial lump sum.

    In other areas of the country solar would be a terrible investment.  On cloudy days my PV system’s output can fall below 0.5 KWh.  With the current technology if you do not live in a sunny climate PV solar is worse than useless.  Greens should not be pushing this technology in areas of the country that cannot benefit.  It’s both funny and sad that the U.K. and German governments have been subsidizing PV solar for their unwitting citizens.

    Greens should promote investment in basic research to improve PV solar before pushing it on the rest of the world as a replacement for traditional energy sources.  Solar simply cannot replace oil and gas until the technology improves.  That’s the reality.

    edited October 2018
  • Reply 37 of 42
    mike1 said:
    rune66 said:
    In the UK, IMHO, Apple is not the main target. Those are Google and Amazon.
    Apple pays a significant amount of VAT, Business Rates and National Insurance (Employers Contribution) to the UK Treasury. Google issues Invoices from Dublin and claims that they do no selling of adverts in the UK and Amazon... well the less said about channelling everything via cough, cough licenses to Luxembourg the better.
    The same goes for Starbucks and McDonalds.

    Apple doesn't pay VAT. VAT is a consumer tax that companies collect on behalf of the state.
    Yes, but Apple primarily makes products and services that people buy and on which VATs are paid. Amazon, Google and Facebook do not (mostly) produce tangible products that are actually sold to consumers so therefore no VATs are collected.
    You pay Google VAT for their Service of advertising. It is not just about physical goods.
    I'm paying a Plasterer to plaster a wall on Thursday. Very little 'goods' but a whole day of his 'service' and will pay VAT on both parts (The plaster and his skill in plastering the wall)

    Apple pays VAT to their UK Suppliers for just about anything they need to run their operation in the UK. Advertising attracts VAT and Apple advertise their products so they pay the Ad agency etc VAT.
    They then deduct that outgoing VAT payment from the sum they collect from the customer and pass the difference onto the Government.
    Adobe ran a scam for years where buying anything online in the UK you ended up paying Irish VAT on the purchase because that was where the order was fulfilled from. Buying the same product from a reseller in the UK attracted UK VAT.
    Google did the same claiming that because their invoice was issued in Dublin, the did no sales business in the UK and didn't need to pay UK VAT OR Corporation Tax on their profits. Result was that the UK Government owed money to Google!
    Because Apple does a significant amount of its UK business through its stores it can't escape paying the VAT to HMRC.
    Amazon OTOH has no physical stores and through some 'shuffling' does all its business in the uk via a company in Luxembourg (AFAIK) so escapes paying any tax on their UK profits.


    seanj
  • Reply 38 of 42
    croprcropr Posts: 944member
    In the UK, IMHO, Apple is not the main target. Those are Google and Amazon.
    Apple pays a significant amount of VAT, Business Rates and National Insurance (Employers Contribution) to the UK Treasury. Google issues Invoices from Dublin and claims that they do no selling of adverts in the UK and Amazon... well the less said about channelling everything via cough, cough licenses to Luxembourg the better.
    The same goes for Starbucks and McDonalds.

    Companies don't pay VAT.  VAT is an end user tax, Companies collect VAT on behalf of the government.
  • Reply 39 of 42
    croprcropr Posts: 944member
    mike1 said:
    rune66 said:
    In the UK, IMHO, Apple is not the main target. Those are Google and Amazon.
    Apple pays a significant amount of VAT, Business Rates and National Insurance (Employers Contribution) to the UK Treasury. Google issues Invoices from Dublin and claims that they do no selling of adverts in the UK and Amazon... well the less said about channelling everything via cough, cough licenses to Luxembourg the better.
    The same goes for Starbucks and McDonalds.

    Apple doesn't pay VAT. VAT is a consumer tax that companies collect on behalf of the state.
    Yes, but Apple primarily makes products and services that people buy and on which VATs are paid. Amazon, Google and Facebook do not (mostly) produce tangible products that are actually sold to consumers so therefore no VATs are collected.
    VAT is applicable on tangibe and non tangible goods and services
    JWSC
  • Reply 40 of 42
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,293member
    mike1 said:
    rune66 said:
    In the UK, IMHO, Apple is not the main target. Those are Google and Amazon.
    Apple pays a significant amount of VAT, Business Rates and National Insurance (Employers Contribution) to the UK Treasury. Google issues Invoices from Dublin and claims that they do no selling of adverts in the UK and Amazon... well the less said about channelling everything via cough, cough licenses to Luxembourg the better.
    The same goes for Starbucks and McDonalds.

    Apple doesn't pay VAT. VAT is a consumer tax that companies collect on behalf of the state.
    Yes, but Apple primarily makes products and services that people buy and on which VATs are paid. Amazon, Google and Facebook do not (mostly) produce tangible products that are actually sold to consumers so therefore no VATs are collected.
    Right, and isn't that exactly what this is all about, hence this new tax is aimed at Google and FaceBook et alia, not Apple?
Sign In or Register to comment.