" />
Published On: Thu, Apr 2nd, 2015

Google tax debate pits corporate ‘thieves’ against state sovereignty

Carl Rhodes (TC) : In the lead-up to the May budget Treasurer Joe Hockey is talking tax. Without mincing words he has referred to corporations who don’t pay the “legitimate” amount of tax as “thieves”.

In response it is mooted that Australia will implement a “diverted profits tax”, commonly called a “Google tax”, levied on revenues that corporations earn in Australia but report overseas.

Google_ban_AD_TurkeyHockey’s attack on thieving corporations comes as part of ongoing worldwide debate over the scale and ingenuity of tax avoidance by multinationals. Combatting tax avoidance was, for example, a key topic at last year’s Brisbane G20 meeting and Australia responded positively.

For Hockey tax avoidance, even within the law, is a matter of justice. He says that paying tax in the country where it was earned “not just an essential tax principle, it is rational and fair”.

The Google tax

Google Inc has been central to international debates over corporate taxation practices. In Australia this has concerned the billing of revenues to the Singapore business to avail of their lower tax rates. Such matters are currently under consideration by the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance.

In Britain the Public Accounts Committee reported in 2013 that instead of paying the standard 20% corporation tax on its US$18 billion UK revenues between 2006 and 2011, Google paid just US$16 million. That is less than 0.1%.

Margaret Hodge, Chair of the committee accused corporate tax avoiders such as Google of being “immoral”. The traditionally right wing UK tabloid The Daily Mail headlined Google as an “illegal tax avoider”.

UK Labour opposition leader Ed Miliband said:

“When Google goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, I say it’s wrong.”

Around the same time Vice Chancellor of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, slammed Google as an “anti-social” purveyor of “brutal information capitalism”.

The diverted profits tax being considered in Australia is based on a similar one announced in the UK in late 2014, and it’s no coincidence it’s been dubbed the “Google tax”.

Legal but ‘immoral’

When politicians from both sides of politics start attacking corporations on a global scale something must be amiss. Even more astounding is that these attacks are delivered on moral grounds, replete with references to thieving, wrong-doing and brutality.

In responding to the issues raised about its tax practices, Google has been entirely unrepentant. Rejecting all moral criticisms, Google extols the virtue of what it is doing. “I am very proud of the structure that we set up,” executive chairman Eric Schmidt said in 2012. “It’s called capitalism. We are proudly capitalistic. I’m not confused about this.”

Google explicitly states a philosophy that “you can make money without doing evil”.

More than tax

There’s clearly a fundamental schism on what counts as being moral for some corporations.

For politicians it is right that corporations make a fair contribution to the states in which they operate through taxation. For corporations what is seen as moral is to pursue the interests of capital through whatever means possible, so long as they adhere to the law.

Responding to the criticisms in the UK, Schmidt stated that “Our position is very simple: taxes are not optional, we pay the mandatory amount”. Perhaps so, but Google’s position is not that simple.

In its submission to Australia’s Senate inquiry Google reminded the government that in a globalised world economy “nations compete for tax revenue”. Such competition, through tax rates and incentives, is clearly the driving force not just for investment, but for where revenues will be booked for tax purposes.

The power of corporations

The issues surrounding the Google tax go far beyond matters of public revenue.

What is most telling about the Google case is that it does not divide politicians on either side of politics. In Australia’s case, while the government might still be pronouncing that it is “open for business”, the state still wants its cut of the revenues generated by that opening. Google is saying that’s ok, so long as you compete for it.

Google is not just a paradigm case for tax avoidance, it reflects more generally the changed relationship between the state and the corporation.

Once corporations only existed at the behest of government and in the name of public good. Now they hold the state for ransom with promises of capital investment and tax revenue.

Tomorrow’s world

What is really at stake here is the power of democracy in a world where multinational corporations have vastly increased in size and power.

If anything the Google tax is a test case for democracy. A case which sees state power and sovereignty come into direct conflict with corporate might. Australia’s Parliamentary Budget Office has reportedly warned the government it risks breaking Australia’s international tax treaties if it introduces a diverted profits tax. There is a suggestion Australia could provoke “revenge taxes” being imposed on Australian businesses operating overseas if it moves independently on the issue.

How this plays out over the coming months and years may well determine whether the authority of democratically elected governments is superseded by a world reigned over by sovereign corporations beholden only to their own financial interests.

The real moral question is: who will rule the world of tomorrow?

Carl Rhodes, The Conversation    –    Carl Rhodes is Professor of Management and Organization Studies at Macquarie University.

About the Author

- nsnbc international is a daily, international online newspaper, established in 2013. nsnbc international is independent from corporate, state or foundation funding and non-partisan. nsnbc occasionally republishes selected articles from other media. Republication of articles does not imply that we agree with media's editorial policy. nsnbc international is free to read and free to subscribe to. We appreciate and depend on modest donations from our regular readers; such as the equivalent of the price of one print newspaper per month.

Displaying 7 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Absolutely disgusting that Google and others don’t pay tax where they trade. Now that I know the attitude of Google I shall for sure look for another provider – maybe we should all boycott Google !!!! While we all strengthen our tax laws. Nowhere to go for them – The argument Google comes up with is arrogant beyond words.

  2. Nick Broadhurst says:

    I believe that a state has a right to levee any tax that the people of the tax feel is ethically correct. If a company does not want to pay that tax, then they should not be earning income in that country. In Australia, for example, they should bar Google from operating in the country. Other search engines, or even Australian ones, would spring up which will pay the proper tax. Companies operating in a foreign country do not go there as a right, they are invited. If they think that is not so, then leave and let someone else earn the revenue, who will pay their taxes back into that country from which they profited.

  3. Joe 1950 says:

    The key fact that the article glosses over is that the main culprits are US MNEs (Google, Starbucks, Amazon etc.) and the holding of major profit pools outside the USA is largely permitted under US tax law.

    In the unlikely event that a major non-US MNE went into the USA and attempted the same thing one suspects that there would be hell to pay – assuming given the more draconian US tax laws it could even be done. The media attacks as US senators and Congress blast away at foreign tax avoidance would echo endlessly till stopped.

  4. joe 1950 says:

    Sorry I missed the key words out which is after “major profit pools outside the USA” to insert “FREE OF US TAXES” in explaining what is going on by USA Corp.!

    • Debbie says:

      JOE – there’s something else that you seem to have MISSED that ins’t “glossed over” by this article. The point that this article is about national sovereignty in the light of transnational corporations. Try to re-read it and maybe come up with constructive suggestions for solutions if you like constrictive debates. :) Happy Holidays. ;)

      • Joe 1950 says:

        Debbie, I am fully aware of the national sovereignty point which is why I was pointing out that what the US government and Treasury allows its corporations (who are the main perpetrators in this debate) to do when investing overseas would not be so easily tolerated in the reverse situation of inward investment into the USA.

        The global corporate power that Google et al which the article attacks could not exist without the US tax system supporting it!

  5. I think the issue is this: If someone wants to come to my country, Australia, and make money from its citizens, then the citizens can demand that part of the profits it made from Australians here be returned to the greater whole of society. We call that tax. If someone wants to come into this society and not give back what the society demands as part of being allowed into it for making profit, then indeed, it is taking money out of that society. It is not returning its fair share, and that simply put, is thieving. It could be called piracy. But thieving is enough. That also goes for companies like Facebook who you pay in Ireland, and any others like Bing and Yahoo. Paying the correct taxes in the land where they make their money is simply giving back to the land where they made their money, and I think that is very fair. Otherwise give the work opportunities to Australians to make their own search engines. They would do it if Google was given the right boot.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>