It’s normally true that the Treasury cannot see economic activity without desiring to tax it. Yet there are sensible ways to gain the revenue to run government and those not so very rational. Taxing a company upon turnover is one of those less rational ones. But that is what is being suggested.

Mel Stride, the financial secretary to the Treasury, said the tax system was not designed to cope with multinational digital businesses, and a revenue levy was the “potentially preferred option”.

“At the moment [they] are generating very significant value in the UK, typically through having a digital platform with lots of users interacting with that platform,” he told the BBC.

“That is driving a lot of value, so you’re looking at social media platforms, online marketplaces, internet search engines, where at the moment the tax regime is not taxing those activities fairly.

“We want to move to a situation where we are taxing those activities fairly.”

This is blithering stupidity in fact. At the first level we should not be taxing companies at all. There’s only us humans here to carry the burden of taxation therefore we should only be taxing us humans. Companies are just collections of humans, there’s no there there to carry the incidence of taxation. Tax employees, shareholders, management, customers, if you desire, but not the corporate structure itself.

At the second level the statement here is that these damn foreigners are coming into our green and sceptered isle and creating lots of economic value. We must stop them by taxing them! Entirely drivel, convincing foreigners to make us richer is something we try to do, not something we aim to prevent.

But it’s at the technical level that this is truly absurd. It’s a transactions tax, Sir James Mirrlees having told us what the problem with these is. One point being that pesky Laffer Curve. Contrary to left wing belief this does exist, it’s a mathematical certainty. But the important point to note about it is that different taxes have different rates at which the peak is hit. For income tax somewhere in the 40 to 50% range for example, for a consumption tax like VAT maybe 20 to 25%. With a transactions tax it could be as low as 0.01%. For that’s the rate at which the EU itself said that a financial transactions tax would make us poorer. The loss of economic growth would lead to total tax revenues being lower even at such a paltry rate.

Even more than this, just what is a tech company that should be subject to such a tax regime? We here, The Continental Telegraph, we’re small if perfectly formed. We’re not a company yet but we’re at least arguably “tech.” We’re most certainly not profitable, not on Day 3. We should be paying a turnover tax, not one on value added, ie profits? No, obviously we shouldn’t, but then if that’s true what is the definition of a tech company which should? This will obviously become something subject to discretion – and that’s just not the way to run a tax system at all.

The Treasury should be told to go boil their heads. Taxing companies is a bad idea to begin with and taxing upon turnover is a stupid way of even doing that.

Unlike many news organisations, we chose an approach that means all our reporting is free and available for everyone. We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable.
For as little as £1 (£10 if you were at OxBridge) you can support us – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Click Here To Make A Contribution - Tim & The Team