4 hours ago
3
Donald Trump’s announcement calling off trade talks with Canada over its digital tax – and that he would impose retaliatory tariffs – demonstrates, once again, not only the president’s ignorance of economics and willful disregard of international norms and the rule of law, but also his willingness to use brute power to get whatever he and the oligarchs who support him want.
He was wrong in labeling the tax as outrageous and “a direct and blatant attack on our country”. It is actually an efficient tax, well designed to ensure that the technology companies – the profits of which benefit the tech oligarchs who have come to dominate US policy – pay their fair share of taxes.
It is accordingly disappointing that Canada appears to have caved, even more so as the prime minister had stood up strongly against Trump’s demand for Canada to become the 51st state. Regrettably, others are giving in – New Zealand and India have reportedly retreated.
Trump’s bullying tactics have been in evidence since he took office. In January he threatened to double taxes on Australian citizens and companies in the US if they went ahead with their planned digital levy.
Why digital taxes?
Because digital companies operate all over the globe, and generate revenue in countries where they do not have a physical presence, they avoid taxation by shifting revenue and profit around the world. Some of the most egregious examples include Google moving $17bn to Bermuda, Apple owing France 10 years of back taxes, and the Italian government’s recent investigation of Meta over whether the firm owes €938m in VAT payments. Apple was so successful in avoiding taxes in Europe that it is estimated that it paid in some years a tax of just 0.005% on its European profits. Of course, when the most profitable companies in the world don’t pay their fair share of taxes, it just shifts the burden on to others.
As more and more activity occurs online, and often from services provided from abroad, countries are losing revenue from sales, employment and profits taxes. Just because an activity is provided digitally doesn’t mean it should not be taxed; indeed, economists argue that digital taxes are among the easiest to administer, precisely because there is a digital record. The idea of the digital service tax is to help countries recoup revenue by taxing any kind of digital service provided from anywhere in the world: online sales, digital advertising, data usage, e-commerce or streaming services. They might include consumption taxes on internet purchases. Indeed, more than 18 countries have such taxes and some 20 others have proposed them.
When it looked like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) would get a global agreement to raise corporate taxes, the agreement included a prohibition on digital taxes. Indeed, one of the reasons that the US was even willing to engage in these discussions on global taxation was to circumscribe others’ ability to impose such taxes. While that agreement was under discussion, the US government, influenced by its tech giants, strongly opposed these digital taxes and then US treasury secretary Janet Yellen spent a good deal of time calling up her counterparts and telling them not to impose them.
But on 20 January, Trump issued an executive order saying that the agreement that had been negotiated over years and years “had no force or effect” in the US. As a result, more countries are now trying to decide whether to keep or adopt digital services taxes. Imposing them will incur the wrath of the US government and tech giants, but countries are well within their rights to do so. Indeed, there was a moratorium on levying digital taxes while there were some prospects of the OECD agreement going into effect; but with Trump, that prospect has all but disappeared, and that moratorium has come to end.
Any country concerned with designing efficient, fair and easy-to-administer digital services duties should consider such taxes – indeed, they have the support not only of economists but of global civil society, including the Independent Commission on Reform of International Corporate Taxation (which I co-chair).
after newsletter promotion
Long-established principles of international taxation hold that so long as a tax does not discriminate across countries – or corporations that are headquartered in different countries – which taxes a country imposes is a matter of national sovereignty. A country may be foolish, levying taxes that are not good for its economy, but so be it: that is a matter for the country to decide. In this case, the tax is actually good for the economy. What Trump has been doing has violated international norms in several ways: using the threat of tariffs or taxes against corporations headquartered in a country whose policy he dislikes, and walking away from what were supposed to be binding trade agreements, without even a pretense of using the mechanisms for dispute resolution embodied in those agreements.
The question now: will countries cave in to these threats or can they stick together and collect the billions they are rightly owed? Make no mistake: what is at stake is more than money that will be collected. It is a matter of the rule of law, which Trump has trampled on so fiercely, both within the US and globally. The rule of law is essential not just for economic performance, but for social justice and democracy. And Canada’s capitulation to Trump’s unilateral move makes a mockery of the whole process by which international agreements are negotiated. Some were skeptical that the so-called “inclusive framework” was but a facade: others may have been at the table, but their voices were not heard. What has now happened verifies this: whatever the US wants, it gets.
Canada should have stood up for its principles and national sovereignty, even in the face of such transparent bullying. The alternative now emerging is the law of the jungle, brute power and Canada becoming, de facto, the 51st US state.
-
Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute
-
Anya Schiffrin, senior lecturer at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and her student Philip L Crane contributed to this piece
