[rayiner]

Companies don’t put strain in public infrastructure. They’re legal abstractions. People and their activities (employees, shipping, factories) put strain on the public infrastructure, and they can be taxed (income, real estate, and pollution taxes) at that point.

The issue is that when Google shows ads to someone in the UK to monetize a search service used by the UK person, Google uses almost no UK resources.

[tomatocracy]

Exactly. What a lot of governments seem to want is some form of tax on foreign companies for the privilege of gaining access to their local population/market. For physical goods we call that an import duty.

[fauigerzigerk]

They do indeed want that, but what is it that has changed recently that makes this so much more urgent? People claim that digitisation has changed the equation, but I don't understand why. Google is for the most part a regular US exporter.

It appears to me that the only thing that has changed is that the US has left everyone else in the dust, which causes envy.

[tomatocracy]

What's changed is that the "foreign competition" are winning to the point that "local businesses" are closing. Exactly the same thing that drives calls for protectionism in physical goods industries.

[Mirioron]

Governments need more tax revenue. Almost every country with social programs is on a timer to figure out ways to raise tax revenue to pay for those programs. Almost every developed country has a fiscal gap.

[fauigerzigerk]

I get why everyone (me included) wants money. But if every government comes up with its own inconsistent ad hoc scheme to tax foreign corporations then they will unleash the mother of all trade wars.

[fauigerzigerk]

>The issue is that when Google shows ads to someone in the UK to monetize a search service used by the UK person, Google uses almost no UK resources.

Why is that an argument against moving from corporation tax to VAT though? I don't think it would change much in terms of the UK's (in)ability to tax Google.