I didn't say that. What I am doing is paraphrasing the attitude of big business. Take this, for example, from today's FT:
Google on Monday called on a judge to extend part of the US government's four-year antitrust scrutiny of Microsoft, intensifying a lobbying battle in which the arch-rivals have sought to limit each other's power.
The issue is not important. The point is. Google is willing to use the law to restrain competition.
But it claims that tax competition is good. That's why its European operation is based in Dublin.
The hypocrisy of this is galling. It's time to work on a level playing field. Business knows unrestrained competition is bad news for everyone. That's true for taxes too.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“The point is. Google is willing to use the law to restrain competition.”
I’m no particular friend of Google, but I have to disagree. Having looked at the reports of this matter today in both the FT and the Washington Post, it seems to me that what they are doing in this case is trying to get the court to limit Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices. In other words, they are seeking to use the law to stop Microsoft restraining competition.
That’s not to say that, on another day, in another court, in connection with another issue, they wouldn’t do something different.
Brian
But does it change much? Either way, these guys aren’t committed to open competition: they’re committed to it within strict limits.
I argue that the same applies to taxes, and we can apply those limits to tax havens.
Richard
Yes, it does make a difference.
Without anti-trust law, monopolies and cartels would form, and there would be no competition. Therefore, Google are being quite reasonable in doing this.
Also, have Google said that they are in favour of tax competition? There are many tax loopholes I think are bad (like the domicile rules), but which I would make use of if I was ever in a position to do so.
“Either way, these guys aren’t committed to open competition: they’re committed to it within strict limits.”
When it comes down to it, no businessman is fully in favour of open competition – it cuts into profits. But that’s where legal and regulatory constraints come in.
Brian
I agree with that
Which is why the consumer (which is just about everyone) needs the state to protect them.
A good reaosn for paying taxes
Richard
I’m sorry to sound utterly cynical, but the state normally produces legal and regulatory constraints in response to lobbying by interested parties. These parties, depending on where they are coming from, are either trying to carve out influence or profit or both. Thus regulation frequently ends up distorting competion and entrenching practices which we, the hapless public end up paying for. A good reason for a root and branch review of the whole machinery of state, to restore some faith between taxpayers and their administrators.