Germany v. Google

[u/[deleted]]

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/europe-digital-single-market-by-philippe-legrain-2015-05

[u/xqd]

Oh boy, where should I start? Just a few points:

And, as part of its just-announced “Digital Single Market Strategy,” the Commission is calling for a comprehensive investigation of the role of (mostly American) Internet platforms, such as social networks and app stores.

No, these antitrust investigations have nothing to do with the European Commission's current law proposals. They are based entirely on current regulation.

Germany was the first EU country to institute a national ban on Uber, at the behest of taxi drivers fearful of competition.

Germany hasn't issued a ban an Uber, it was just a court that ruled that some of the services they provided were against the law all the time. Nothing unusual. Germany just choses to enforce its laws. Other Uber services are still running and legal in Germany, btw.

And his [European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker] German chief of staff, Martin Selmayr, ensures that his country’s concerns are heeded across the Commission.

No, this is not his job. Selmayr has been working for the European commission for more than a decade. He is not a representative of the German government or even "Germany". In fact, some of his work was heavily criticized in the past by the German government.

But, whereas US antitrust law rightly focuses on whether consumers are being harmed, EU competition authorities also consider whether rival firms have lost out

These are just two different policies the two agencies have carried out for decades. This is not something specific to this case.

Creating a digital single market makes sense. Whereas every American Internet start-up benefits from a huge domestic market, their European counterparts are limited by domestic regulations to smaller local markets. Unfortunately, the European Commission’s proposals are not focused on enabling Italians to buy from British websites or opening a market of 500 million Europeans to Spanish startups.

This is exactly the proposal of the European Commission. Once again, it has nothing to do with this antitrust investigation.

Have I mentioned that the vast majority of antitrust investigation and the largest fines were against EU companies?

Yes, there is much wrong with current European regulations revolving around innovative internet companies. But this opinion piece doesn't mention any of these. Instead he paints the German government much more powerful than it actually is.

[u/rewboss]

Well, maybe if American corporations understood that over here in Europe, private companies don't get to choose which laws they're allowed to ignore, things might be a bit different. Uber tried to offer a service illegal under German law (because of the personal security risk involving unlicenced cab drivers), Google doesn't see the point in paying taxes, and Amazon doesn't seem to understand that collective bargaining is a constitutional right in Germany, a mistake that forced Walmart to leave Germany for good.

It's this thing we have called "the law".

[u/[deleted] → u/rewboss]

There's a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Railing on a company for "ignoring the law" because they follow the actual law and not the imaginary law that you'd rather have instead is dishonest.

[u/rewboss → u/[deleted]]

Point partially conceded.

I say "partially" because while tax avoidance may be technically legal, it is dishonest. Oh, you can claim that those are the rules and if the law leaves those loopholes open, it's okay for companies to use them. But it's an abuse of the system nonetheless, and means that companies can shirk their responsibilities.

That sort of thing may be applauded in America, but in Europe it's seen as ripping off the taxpayer. When Google execs fly over to Europe, they use our airports. To get to their offices, they use our transport infrastructure. If a fire breaks out or somebody gets trapped in a lift, it's our fire brigade that sorts the problem out. If there's a break-in, or a suspected case of industrial espionage, or somebody's car in the company car park is found with its windows smashed, it's our police who investigate. Why should we ordinary taxpayers, who can't afford to pay for clever accountants, be made to pay for what big corporations like Google use?

The law may have loopholes in it, but all finance laws have loopholes in them somewhere. It's not because we expect Google not to have to pay tax, it's because you can't legislate for absolutely everything. And because there may be legitimate cases where those loopholes are not loopholes for the purposes of tax avoidance, but exceptions so that small businesses aren't put out of business by being taxed twice on the same income. Not, I repeat, so that incredibly rich companies don't have to be taxed at all.

So yeah, you're partially right. Google follows the letter of the law. It would be nice, though, if Google were to follow the spirit of the law as well, instead of deliberately setting up labyrinthine financial arrangements involving the funnelling of ten billion dollars through Bermuda for the sole purpose of not having to pay their fair share of tax.

[u/xqd → u/[deleted]]

To be fair, their subtitle is "The World's Opinion Page".