UK Gov't Considers Google Tax?
from the but-why? dept
Calvin was the first of a few folks to send in this story about how some in the UK gov't are discussing a series of different proposals to raise tax revenue to pay for the production of news programs on TV, with one option being creating a search engine tax, directed at Google. It seems that basically everyone admits there's no actual justification for the tax other than "Google is making a lot of money, and we need that money." Of course, it's worth pointing out that it sounds like the discussions are still quite preliminary and there are plenty who don't think it's a very good idea. The same group has also been tossing around suggestions for a broadband tax or a digital download tax that would be used in the same manner. Considering how early on the discussions are, it doesn't seem like much to get worked up about, but it is quite silly that this is even up for discussion in the first place. As people point out in the article, this would be taxing a successful growing company, helping to slow down its growth, to help fund an operation that hasn't been growing. That doesn't seem likely to help the economy very much.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: search engines, tax, uk
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Post 1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, thank you, I know that America has taxes. Not my point.
I'm glad that, at this time, America doesn't have interwebz tax.
Good day, xenophobe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
big problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Government? Nah, they would try taxing Google...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Belgrave House
76 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9TQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0)20-7031-3000
Fax: +44 (0)20-7031-3001
should do it.........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be cheaper...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long will the line be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're seeing the beginning of an age of confiscation thanks to the left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (Flyfish. really, this 're:' box is useless if the person you're replying to didn't enter a subject)
both with little or no care for the public or reality, and much for lining their own pockets, be it in money or influence, and pushing on with their blind ideology.
[amusingly, I'd have said basically the same thing (inverted where applicable) if the comment had been directed at the 'right']
also, 'google tax' ? what the heck? that's just dumb. i mean, google's a business, right? they have an office there? so they already get caught by the appropriate normal taxes.
a general tax on internet/broadband access isn't as idiotic, but at least a large port of it Better be going into providing that service. and the rest should be paying for other things of similar nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even more importantly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cut 'em off at the knees...
And then I'd see what the morons in Parliament would have to say about that.
Search engines are a requirement for civilized Internet "living". Want to have some stupid transfer the wealth to your pals who fund your campaigns scheme? Well, lets see how well your people like having their access to search engines cut off?
Politicians all over world act like they are entitled to somebody's cash because they exist! Total rubbish. Government needs to learn about real budgeting and "impulse control" just like the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cut 'em off at the knees...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please note that Parliament is considering an unjust tax on Google. If the tax passes, we will close off all access to the UK. If you do not wish this to happen, contact your MP.
If the tax is passed, close off search capabilities to British IP addresses, and redirect Google.co.uk to a page that explains the tax, and provides links to the websites with the contact information of Parliament.
Assuming that this tax would affect all search engines, Google should strike a deal with Microsoft and Yahoo to do a blanket boycott.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online companies prima-facie exempt from tax?
Arguing that taxing new and growing business areas is a bad idea is one argument - but how new is online advertising?
Google will only pass the cost of the tax onto customers anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Block access to the UK?
First off if they are still making money then they just won't do that.
Secondly the tax would be on those buying advertising not those being advertised to. They could stop selling advertising in the UK - but see above...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atlas Shrugged, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There may be a kernel of wisdom here...
But, In the way that things sometimes occur, it has sparked a hair-brained idea in my mind. First, sweep away all the trappins of traditional broadcast TV. (tall order that, but this is hypothetical) Imagine for a minute with me a hybrid content delivery system, based on Internet sttreaming, Internet downloading, and (possibly) traditional cable/broadcast formats as well. Borrow a little bit from the UK's model, and license every TV, computer, MID, etc. upon which you can receieve content (whether or not you do) which is personally owned by an individual, or installed in a residence, with a monthly fee to be paid in. Content distributors (youtube, your local cable co, broadcasters, etc.) and content producers (you, me, professional production companies, etc) would get paid out based on the number of relative views in a given month their content generated, or whom they served content to, on a simple mathematical basis. Content delivery and Content production each get half, so if I produced (for instance) 1% of all the video views this month (probably prorated based on the length of the product), then I get 1/2% of all the money brought in across the whole system. Professional content producers who make a quality product would be expected to beat out most of the silly cats, guys getting hit in the crotch and other assorted oddments which are all over YouTube. Downloaded or time-shifted content could be tagged, not with restrictive DRM, but with a code which allows the player software to check in with a server somewhere to tally the playtime used. Content distributors would be free to add advertisements to the content, if they feel the market will bear it, and that may be how broadcasters would continue to offset their higher operating costs. Content producers could supplement their income by doing product placements, or producing entertaining shows which are also advertisements. The tradeoff here would be that any content put into the system would be freely playable by anyone subscribing to the system (which would effectively be everyone), for as long as it is available to them for viewing (forever if they downloaded it).. the flip side is that content producers can keep getting paid out each month for people viewing their content. The other stipulation is that it's an open platform. Any distributor may publish any content they like, and no exclusives or restrictions can be placed on the works by the content producers.
Of course the technology behind such a platform would need to be solid and as unobtrusive as possible to the end users. Some kind of a content clearinghouse might be needed, since the concept of "networks" might be obsolete.
Of course, I'm talking about video content here, but you could just as easily do something with music, audiobooks, e-books, any kind of digital media whose consumption can be measured. If you look into print-on-demand publishing, you might be able to replace all of the traditional book establishment with this kind of system too, perhaps with the end-user paying a printing fee for having the digital goods translated into a physical form. If you wanted to burn up your own printer, you could do it at home, but a kiosk-sized machine could perhaps produce a bound book while you shop in the mall.
Wow, I went far afield wit that, and I realize none of that is exactly new, but it's a business model that would virtually eliminate piracy as we know it, because everyone would be paying into the system anyway, so there would be little need to restrict the flow of information. This would put the MPAA and RIAA back in the business of getting the word out about their fine products, and not acting like a private police agency. Of course, this is a pipe dream, but I had fun dreaming it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
Google should take the pie away. It doesn't matter if that entity is a media giant like Viacom, a "rights" group like the RIAA or MPAA, or a government wanting to tax them from abroad, they need to be reprimanded. They need to see what the internet would be like without Google, or any of their associated engines. Yes, this means in an act of solidarity, Yahoo, MSN search, and all the other engines should pull their services, just for a time, and simultaneously so.
It's time for people to stop trying to take money for what they did not create. Casual digital pirates don't create, but they don't take money for other people's work. Google doesn't create, and they don't take money for their content (They take money for services rendered to those who wish to use them for an advertising medium, and thus support our free use.)
*** conversely ***
Governments take money, because they can. RIAA and MPAA, and their affiliated companies take money because they can. None of them create content themselves, and neither give back what is due to the content creators. If you don't believe me, try to create content without playing by the rules of any of those groups, and watch what happens. The gov. will use something like the FTC, IRS, or DoJ to shut you down. The media-opoly will suppress your content under a mountain of takedowns, lawsuits, and paid shills in the press disdaining your work. However, offer yourself up on their plate, and everything's fine.
Yes, this was a cloaked attack against the legal profession in general, Mike M. excluded. How about let's tear away the cloak? If you look at it honestly, behind most of these problems of people wanting something for no effort on their part, you will find an attorney making a buck. It's that simple.
Oh, and don't forget the attorney making a buck defending you too. Unless he's doing it all pro bono, then he's a walking god.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris will come for U(K)
Watch out!
Chuck Norris will tax the UK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter what
You don't tax Google...Google taxes you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see both sides
The non dom tax argument is quite similar - just like Google, these people benefit the wider economy with their highly successful business ventures, so where should the regulation start and when is too much that will encourage them to leave completely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing that didnt happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]