Google's taxes and the economic illiteracy of the Mayor of London

Courtesy of Uncounted

Courtesy of Uncounted. (Answer: $100 billion)

No, not the Lord Mayor of London, but the Mayor of London, a certain Boris Johnson, who’s frequently tipped to be Britain’s next Prime Minister. Given that Britain is arguably the most important player in the global offshore system, this man’s opinions deserve close scrutiny.

The topic at hand is Google’s tax affairs in the UK, and the UK government’s triumphant widely derided announcement that Google would be paying an extra £130 million in back taxes over the last 10 years.

At £13 millionish per year, anyone could tell you that that isn’t enough. And some calculations have been made, as Uncounted summarises:

“Prem Sikka quickly calculated Google’s effective tax rate (given some necessary assumptions on relative profitability of UK operations) at around 2.77%. Richard Murphy suggested tax of around £200 million each year would be about right, as did Jolyon Maugham QC (and like Prem, put Google’s new effective rate near 3%).”

All these calculations are useful tools and techniques for looking at the problem, which can be replicated in other cases.


Boris Johnson, a.k.a. BoJo the clown

Now, London’s Mayor, the clownish but very influential Boris Johnson. He’s written an extraordinary article in the Telegraph newspaper, which starts well:

“It has never seemed fair that some of these companies – no matter how wonderful the service they provide – should be paying so much less in tax than the high-street tea rooms and bookshops they have pulverised. It would be a good thing, both for the UK finances and for the image of these great companies, if they paid more.”

Quite so. He’s put his fingers on one of the ways modern capitalism is being corrupted by offshore tax shenanigans: helping bigger players to out-compete and ‘pulverise’ the smaller players on a factor – tax – that has nothing to do with genuine productivity and everything to do with raw wealth extraction.

But then his understanding of how the world works goes, as he might put it, ‘squiffy.’

“It is absurd to blame the company for “not paying their taxes”. You might as well blame a shark for eating seals. It is the nature of the beast; and not only is it the nature of the beast – it is the law. It is the fiduciary duty of their finance directors to minimise tax exposure.”

Where to start?

First, companies can display varying degrees of aggression in their tax policies, which don’t involve their having to snake their financial affairs out to Ireland and Bermuda, as Google has done. Paying an effective 2.8 percent tax is highly aggressive action taken against the taxpayers of the United Kingdom (in this case, and against those of many other countries.)

Second, this fiduciary thing. They are required to do this? Wrong, Boris, and we obtained a formal legal opinion to this effect.  (The full legal opinion is here.)

Now for some more, perhaps even more foolish, comment.

“The Irish decided they wanted to go for an ultra-low corporation tax, at 12.5 per cent. It was their sovereign ambition to attract the HQ of Apple and others. They wanted Irish taxi drivers to have the honour of ferrying Apple executives around, and they wanted Irish waitresses to snaffle their huge tips. The EU Commission is partly excited by the chance to bash a corporate American giant; but mainly it is a chance to attack tax arbitrage between member states – to move ever closer towards uniformity and away from a spirit of healthy competition between jurisdictions. We need that competition.

Again, where to start with this nonsense?

First, it’s not Ireland’s 12.5 percent tax rate that it is the big one: it is Ireland’s vast appetite for creating and tolerating loopholes that mean only a tiny percentage of a corporation’s income ever gets subjected to that 12.5 percent tax.

Second, let’s knock this “every tax haven has a sovereign right to set its own tax rate” on the head. It may be true that some tax havens have a sovereign right to set their own tax rates (although, it must be said, the British tax havens actually don’t have this right.) But if that is the case, then it is the sovereign right of other nation states (in this case Britain) whose own tax systems are undermined and attacked by a tax haven (in this case Ireland, or Bermuda) to take measures — including aggressive measures — to defend themselves from attack.  And they have every sovereign right to join together in supra-national arrangements (such as joining groups like the EU) to help put weight behind their defensive measures.

Third, don’t get us started on ‘healthy competition between jurisdictions.’ This is the most economically illiterate part of the whole article.

For one thing, all – and we mean all – ‘competition’ between jurisdictions on tax is harmful: every time, always. (Fools’ Gold has outlined a spectacular range of harms that stem from ‘competition’ between nations on things like tax: that site is a work in progress: there are other harms.)

To quote Paul Krugman on the economic illiteracy of eulogising this kind of competition:

“If we can teach undergrads to wince when they hear someone talk about ‘competitiveness,’ we will have done our nation a great service.”

Or Martin Wolf:

“The notion of the competitiveness of countries, on the model of the competitiveness of companies, is nonsense.”

To get a first inkling of why competition between companies in a market is nothing like ‘competition’ between countries, ponder the difference between a failed company and a failed state.

For a full overview of the extraordinary world of the Competitiveness Agenda – and this is a prime example of it – please do peruse see the Fools’ Gold site.

Also do take a look at our comprehensive defence of the corporate income tax, here.

Related Posts

Launch of international research collaboration, #AltAusterity

alt austerityToday is the launch of #AltAusterity, a new, international research collaboration of which Tax Justice Network is a partner.  The project aims to stimulate public debate on the subject of austerity though high quality research. It is a response to the lack of evidence which has underpinned the current policy agenda on austerity. The project […]


RB tax avoidance – company calls for public country by country reporting after Oxfam report reveals profit shifting

pictureOxfam has today released a report on tax dodging by RB, the company formerly known as Reckitt Benckiser and the maker of thousands of well known household products. The report looks at the 2012 restructuring of the company which saw it set up ‘hubs’ in the Netherlands, Dubai and Singapore, all well known corporate tax […]


Half measures mean Mauritius will continue to be a tax haven for the developing world

MauritiusThere was news this week that Mauritius has signed the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (MLI). This is an initiative from the OECD to allow countries to take measures designed to stop tax avoidance by multinational companies and put them into their existing network of […]


G20: Pressure rising on tax haven USA

HamburgWhilst the eyes of the world focused on the isolation of the US from the ‘G19’ position on climate change, something remarkable played out elsewhere in the process. Following closely the common EU position that we highlighted a few days ago, the G20 communique devotes important space to tax justice. It’s so good we quote […]


Will the G20 ever end the global problem of tax avoidance and tax evasion?

HamburgAhead of the G20 Summit in Hamburg this week our own George Turner has published this op-ed in the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung today. The article discusses why, despite sustained political engagement from world leaders, we are still some way from solving the problem of tax avoidance and tax evasion. Here’s an English translation of the article:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top