Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

Australia could tax Google and other tech giants with a digital services tax

Published

on

Australia could tax Google, Facebook and other tech giants with a digital services tax – but don’t hold your breath

Tada Images/Shutterstock

Fei Gao, University of Sydney and Richard Krever, The University of Western Australia

Tech giants like Google, Facebook and Netflix make billions of dollars from Australian users every year. But most of those profits are not taxed here.

To address this tax gap, some countries have introduced a new kind of tax called the digital services tax, or DST. It applies to revenue earned from users in a country, even if the company has no physical operations there. Some European Union member countries, the UK and Canada have all introduced such a tax.

In Australia, it is estimated the five largest tech giants recorded A$15 billion in revenue in Australia last year, but combined they paid only $254 million in tax.

Australia has never contemplated imposing a similar tax. New Zealand tried but backed down last week after the United States threatened to impose higher tariffs on New Zealand goods.

So what’s holding Australia back?

How 20th-century tax treaties create 21st-century problems

To understand why Australia thinks its hands are tied on the taxation of the multinational tech giants, we need to step back in time.

About 100 years ago, Australia and other developed nations decided to tax residents on all their income earned worldwide, while non-residents were taxed only on income earned locally.

After the second world war, Australia entered into tax treaties so foreign companies selling to Australian customers would no longer be taxed here. Instead, those companies’ home countries would tax all their profits.

As the world moved to digital products this century, it became easy for giant multinational enterprises offering advertising on social media (such as Facebook and Instagram), advertising on search platforms (Google), and streaming services (Netflix) to provide those services from abroad. Little or no activity is conducted through local branches.

But countries where the sales are made have increasingly questioned the wisdom of having forfeited their taxing rights over income by foreign providers.

The rise of the digital services tax

The obvious solution would have been to renegotiate the treaties. This would restore the right of countries like Australia to tax foreign companies’ profits made from local customers or users.

However, treaty renegotiation is slow and complex. So several European countries, beginning with France in 2019, came up with a short-cut solution.

They introduced a discrete new tax on sales of digital services, called digital services taxes (DSTs). While the specific design varies by country, most DSTs apply a low tax rate, typically between 3% and 5%, on revenue rather than profits. They target large digital platforms that earn money from users within the taxing country, regardless of the company’s location.

Because DSTs are levied on revenue and are structured as separate from income tax, governments argued they could be introduced without breaching income tax treaties.

The new taxes quickly became popular and spread widely.
In Australia, the Greens have called for a DST, but both major parties have remained steadfast in their objection to a new tax. This is due to the concern that the US may impose retaliatory tariffs on Australian goods.

US tech bosses at the inauguration of President Trump: (from left to right) CEO of Meta Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, CEO of Google Sundar Pichai and X CEO Elon Musk.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AFP

How big is the tax loss?

Australians are enthusiastic consumers of digital products. Depending on which companies are included in the calculation, the annual revenues vary between $15 billion and $26 billion a year, but only a fraction of that is taxed here.

At a time when the federal budget is forecasting deficits for the foreseeable future, Australia is foregoing potentially millions in lost revenue from these digital giants.

While Australia has avoided a DST as a solution to the income tax loss, it has been willing to regulate and tax foreign digital companies in other ways.
Australia collects 10% goods and services tax, or GST, on digital services provided to Australian companies, including streaming platforms and app subscriptions.

This helps ensure foreign providers are taxed similarly to domestic ones when it comes to the GST.

Australia has also imposed non-tax obligations on digital giants such as the requirement that digital platforms pay Australian media outlets for using their news content.

Serious hurdles for reform

In February, the Trump administration described DSTs as tools used by foreign governments to “plunder American companies” and warned retaliatory tariffs would be imposed in response.

The accompanying White House fact sheet singled out Australia and Canada, arguing the US digital economy dwarfs those countries’ entire economies. It suggested any attempt to tax US tech companies would not go unanswered.

Six weeks later, the US imposed a 10% tariff on most Australian exports to the US and a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium exports.

The US sees its penal tariff plans as a useful negotiating tool to pressure trading partners into retreat on a broad range of peripheral complaints, including the digital services tax.

To date, only two countries have retreated: New Zealand and India. Other countries are standing firm.

In Australia, the Greens have called for the adoption of a DST, but the current and previous governments remain firm in their opposition. There is concern about antagonising the US at a delicate time when our broader trade relations are under scrutiny.

For the foreseeable future, the digital giants will continue to earn billions from Australian users. Most of those profits will remain beyond the reach of Australian tax law.

Fei Gao, Lecturer in Taxation, Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney and Richard Krever, Professor of Tax Law, The University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

The trouble with Trump’s Greenland strategy

Published

on

Trump’s annexation of Greenland seemed imminent. Now it’s on much shakier ground.

Eric Van Rythoven, Carleton University

Looking at headlines around the world, it seemed like United States President Donald Trump’s annexation of Greenland was imminent. Buoyed by the success of his military operation to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric and threatened tariffs on any nation that opposed him.

Adding insult to injury, he openly mocked European leaders by posting their private messages and sharing an AI-generated image of himself raising the American flag over Greenland.

But behind these headlines a different story has emerged that has likely forced Trump to back down on using military force against Greenland and to drop threatened tariffs against Europe.

Trump’s military threats had toxic polling numbers with the American public. His Republican allies openly threatened to revolt. European countries are sending reinforcements to Greenland, hiking the costs of any potential invasion. And Europeans started to contemplate what economic retaliation might look like.

Far from being inevitable, Trump’s Greenland gambit is now on shaky ground.

No good options

Trump has three options to take control of Greenland: diplomacy, money and military force. The latest diplomatic talks collapsed as Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers left the White House in “fundamental disagreement” over the future of the territory.

Simply buying the territory is a non-starter. Greenlanders have already said the territory is not for sale, and U.S. Congress is unwilling to foot the bill. That’s left military force, the worst possible option.

It’s difficult to convey in words just how stunningly unpopular this option is with Americans. A recent Ipsos poll found that just four per cent of Americans believe using military force to take Greenland is a good idea.

To put that in perspective, here are some policies that are more popular:

If your official foreign policy is less popular than pardoning drug traffickers, then your foreign policy might be in trouble.

Sensing this unpopularity, Trump has already begun to walk back his military threats. Using his platform at Davos, he claimed “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.” He also said he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland.”

It’s too early to tell whether Trump is being sincere. Not long after claiming to be the “president of peace,” he was invading Venezuela and bombing Iran.

The broader point is that if diplomacy has failed, money is a non-starter, and now military action is ostensibly being taken off the table, then Trump has no good options.

The danger of defections

Trump’s political coalition, in fact, is increasingly fragile and in danger of defections. The Republican House majority has shrunk to a razor-thin margin, and Republicans are already signalling a loud break with Trump over Greenland.

Nebraska congressman Don Bacon recently told USA Today: “There’s so many Republicans mad about this … If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency.”

The situation in the Senate looks even worse. Multiple Republican senators have pledged to oppose any annexation, with Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski visiting Copenhagen to reassure the Danish government. With enough defections, U.S. congress could sharply curtail Trump’s plans and force a humiliating climb-down.

There’s yet another danger of defection. Senior military officers can resign, retire or object to the legality of orders to attack America’s NATO allies. Just last year, Adm. Alvin Holsey, the leader of U.S. Southern Command, abruptly retired less than year into what is typically a multi-year posting.

Holsey’s departure came amid reports that he was questioning the legality of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean. Americans still have a high level of confidence in the military, so when senior officers suddenly leave, it can set off alarm bells.

Creating a tripwire

In recent days, Denmark and its European allies have rushed to send military reinforcements to Greenland. These forces, however, would have no hope of defeating a committed American invasion. So why are they there?

In strategic studies, we call this a “tripwire force.” The reasoning is that any attack on this force will create strong pressure at home for governments to respond. If Danes and Swedes — and other Europeans for that matter — saw their soldiers being captured or killed, it would force their governments to escalate the conflict and retaliate against the United States.

The Trump administration would like to seize Greenland, face no European forces and suffer no consequences. But the entire point of a tripwire force is to deny easy wins and to signal that any attack would be met with costly escalation. It creates a price to invading Greenland for an administration that rarely wants to pay for anything.

The B-word

Amid the Trump administration’s economic and sovereignty threats, people are forced to grapple with what comes next. European governments are already quietly debating retaliation, including diplomatic, military and economic responses.

Chief among these is the European Union’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, colloquially known as the “trade bazooka,” that could significantly curb America’s access to the EU market.

But for ordinary Europeans, a different B-word will come to mind: boycott.

Some Europeans began boycotting U.S. goods last year amid Trump’s trade threats — but never to the same level as Canadians. That could quickly change if the U.S. engages in a stunning betrayal of its European allies. Fresh anger and outrage could see Europeans follow Canada’s lead.

Trump repeatedly threatened Canada with annexation, and it triggered a transformation of Canadian consumer habits. Canadians travel to the U.S. less, buy less American food and alcohol and look for more home-grown alternatives. Despite Canada’s small population, these boycotts have caused pain for U.S. industries.

Now imagine a similar scenario with the EU. In 2024, the U.S. exported almost US$665 billion in goods and services to the EU. It’s one of the largest export markets for the U.S., fuelling thousands of jobs and businesses.

The real danger for American companies, however, is when consumer pressure moves upwards to governments and corporations. European governments and corporations who buy from American giants like Microsoft, Google and Boeing will start to see public pressure to buy European — or at least not American. America’s most valuable corporate brands risk being contaminated by the stigma of the U.S. government.

Will he, won’t he?

None of this will stop the Trump administration from trying. Trump’s own words — that there is “no going back” on his plans for Greenland — ensure he’s backed himself into corner.

The more likely scenario seems to be starting to play out — Trump will try and then fail. His threats to annex Greenland will likely be remembered next to “90 trade deals in 90 days” and “repeal and place” in the pantheon of failed Trump policies.

The tragedy here is not simply a Trump administration with desires that consistently exceeds its grasp. It’s that the stain of betraying America’s closest allies will linger long after this administration is gone.The Conversation

Eric Van Rythoven, Instructor in Political Science, Carleton University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Market Watch: Greenland deals, Japan bonds & Australia jobs

Join David Scutt as we dissect fast-moving global markets and key insights from Greenland to Japan and Australia.

Published

on

Join David Scutt as we dissect fast-moving global markets and key insights from Greenland to Japan and Australia.


From Greenland to global bonds, and right here at home in Australia, markets are moving fast—and we break down what it all means for investors.

David Scutt from StoneX joins us to give expert insights on the key risks and opportunities shaping the week.

First, the U.S. is back in Greenland with its “Sell America 2.0” strategy. We explore the geopolitical wins, the potential economic gains, and the hurdles that could derail this ambitious plan.

Then, Japan’s bond market meltdown has shaken global investors. Scutt explains what triggered the rout, whether it’s over, and the implications for markets across Asia and the US.

Finally, Australia’s December jobs report is more than just numbers—it’s a critical piece of the RBA rates puzzle. We break down the scenarios and what a surprise result could mean for the economy and local markets.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MarketWatch #GlobalMarkets #GreenlandDeals #JapanBonds #AustraliaJobs #RBA #DavidScutt #TickerNews


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Backlash over AI “Indigenous Host” sparks ethical debate

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.

Published

on

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.


A viral social media account featuring an AI-generated “Indigenous host” is drawing criticism from advocates and creators alike, raising questions about authenticity, representation, and ethics in the age of artificial intelligence. Critics argue that AI characters can displace real Indigenous voices and mislead audiences.

Dr Karen Sutherland from Uni SC discusses how AI is reshaping identity on social media and why the backlash over this account has ignited a wider conversation about “digital blackface” and the ethics of AI-generated personalities. She explores the fine line between education, entertainment, and exploitation.

The discussion also dives into monetisation, platform responsibility, and the broader risks AI poses to media and cultural representation. As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, audiences and creators alike must consider what authenticity truly means online.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIControversy #IndigenousVoices #DigitalBlackface #SocialMediaEthics #AIIdentity #OnlineBacklash #MediaEthics #RepresentationMatters


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now