Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • Global cities
    • Strategic autonomy
    • War in Ukraine
    • European digital sphere
    • Recovery and resilience
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Podcast
  • Videos
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

Time to tackle the tax dodgers

Eva Joly 7th July 2020

With some bailed out companies continuing to pay dividends, the focus should shift to making big corporations contribute to the cost of recovery.

corporate taxation
Eva Joly

Remember the ‘world after the pandemic’? The Covid-19 crisis has caused mourning in hundreds of thousands of families and brought the world’s economies to their knees. But by forcing more than half of humanity to stop, it has also forced us to think, to dream of a more egalitarian, greener world. In that world, we would recognise the importance of quality public services, having seen health workers fighting heroically against the virus and teachers trying to keep in contact with their students, despite the lockdown and lack of resources.

Through timely and otherwise-welcome operations of ‘solidarity’—donating masks and gel or opening up their premises—big brands have not hesitated to advertise on the back of the pandemic. But all over the world, many companies are paying out billions in dividends, even after benefiting from state handouts.

In France, for example, half the CAC 40 index—representing the 40 top companies by market capitalisation—still decided to pay out between €35 and €41 billion in dividends, despite receiving state aid from the short-time-work scheme to compensate workers for reduced hours due to the pandemic. In Germany, the list is also extensive, with carmakers featuring prominently—Volkswagen has placed around 80,000 employees on short-time contracts, yet still plans to pay around €3.3 billion in dividends. And in the UK, the world’s largest chemicals company, BASF, which received £1 billion in support funding, voted last month to pay out more than three times that amount in dividends to shareholders.

Champions of indecency

The soaring dividends are feeding the billionaires, though the European ones are not the champions of indecency. In the United States, the assets of 600 billionaires grew by $434 billion, or 15 per cent, during the first two months of lockdown. The fortunes of Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg alone—founder bosses of Amazon and Facebook respectively—increased in sum by nearly $60 billion. This is no coincidence, as digital companies have benefited most from the pandemic—since they do not require any physical interaction with the public—often at the expense of small and medium-sized distribution firms.


Become part of our Community of Thought Leaders


Get fresh perspectives delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for our newsletter to receive thought-provoking opinion articles and expert analysis on the most pressing political, economic and social issues of our time. Join our community of engaged readers and be a part of the conversation.

Sign up here

Ironically, these multinational digital companies are also the champions of tax avoidance. The ‘GAFA’—Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—are not the only ones who do not pay taxes according to their activities. But, because they are dematerialised, they are able to exploit the loopholes in the international tax system more easily.

By manipulating transactions between their subsidiaries, they are reporting record profits in tax havens and very low ones—if not losses—in countries with higher corporate taxes, even though they are actually operating extensively in the latter. For example, Amazon, in spite of doubling its profits in the US in 2018, didn’t pay a single dollar in taxes there, for the second year in a row.

This is why, while keeping in mind that the US administration has just announced that it no longer wants to take part in negotiations to overhaul the international tax system, it is urgent for countries to introduce, regionally or unilaterally, at least temporary taxes on the digital giants. This is one of five main recommendations proffered last month by the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT)—of which I am a member alongside economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman—to enable states to cope with the explosion in spending caused by the pandemic.

When the economies of the European Union are set to shrink by 7.4 per cent, the worst recession in the bloc’s history—the International Monetary Fund is expecting a global recession of 4.9 per cent—austerity is no longer appropriate. We need to invest in health, schools and infrastructure, but also in supporting businesses, especially the smallest ones. But even if some governments pretend to ignore the fact that we shall have to foot the bill in the end, we must, from now on, turn to those who benefit from the system without contributing to it.

Siren calls

In addition to digital companies, governments must also apply a higher corporate tax to firms in monopoly or oligopoly situations—especially those profiting from the crisis, such as in the pharmaceutical sector. Above all, we must not succumb to the siren calls for tax cuts, for which big companies are already campaigning, claiming that they are ‘necessary for reconstruction’.

We already know that, in normal times, it is not taxation that pushes a company to invest in a country: it is more about the quality of infrastructure, the workforce, market access or political stability. And while expansion projects are constrained by uncertainty and corporate overcapacity, tax cuts will not stimulate private investment anyway. But they would certainly deprive governments of valuable resources.

To protect and increase these resources, we must finally make a major push for transparency, to uncover the amounts hidden in tax havens. This concerns those with large fortunes, of course, who should finally pay their fair share of taxes to fund the consequences of this crisis—some countries, such as Argentina, are considering this—but above all the multinationals.

They must declare where and how much they earn on a country-by-country basis. This would allow governments to tax them at a minimum rate—at least 25 per cent, according to ICRICT.


Support Progressive Ideas: Become a Social Europe Member!


Support independent publishing and progressive ideas by becoming a Social Europe member for less than 5 Euro per month. You can help us create more high-quality articles, podcasts and videos that challenge conventional thinking and foster a more informed and democratic society. Join us in our mission - your support makes all the difference!

Become a Social Europe Member

In concrete terms, if a French multinational, for example, decided to declare its profits in the Cayman Islands—or, even closer, in the Netherlands or Luxembourg—to take advantage of a very low tax rate, France would be able to recover the difference. This measure would quickly make the raison d’être of tax havens disappear.

And, for once, governments are in a good position to impose this transparency. All they have to do is announce, as France, Denmark and Italy, among others, have already done, that companies with headquarters or subsidiaries in tax havens—without carrying out any real activity there—will not be entitled to any public aid to deal with the Covid-19 crisis.

There is no time to lose. The 2008 financial crisis already made us dream of a fairer world—with results we all know about. Losing this new opportunity, at a time when social, human and climatic crises are multiplying throughout the world, would be unforgivable.

corporate tax,taxing multinationals,tax multinationals
Eva Joly

Eva Joly is a member of the Independent Commission for International Corporate Tax Reform (ICRICT) and a former member of the European Parliament, where she was vice-chair of the Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering, Tax Evasion and Fraud.

You are here: Home / Economy / Time to tackle the tax dodgers

Most Popular Posts

Belarus,Lithuania A tale of two countries: Belarus and LithuaniaThorvaldur Gylfason and Eduard Hochreiter
dissent,social critique,identity,politics,gender Delegitimising social critique and dissent on the leftEszter Kováts
retirement,Finland,ageing,pension,reform Late retirement: possible for many, not for allKati Kuitto
Credit Suisse,CS,UBS,regulation The failure of Credit Suisse—not just a one-offPeter Bofinger
Europe,transition,climate For a just and democratic climate transitionJulia Cagé, Lucas Chancel, Anne-Laure Delatte and 8 more

Most Recent Posts

Barcelona,feminist,feminism Barcelona: a feminist municipalism now at riskLaura Pérez Castaño
Spain,elections,Sánchez Is Spain on the right track?Bettina Luise Rürup
CBI,Confederation of British Industry,harassment Crisis at Britain’s CBI holds lessons for othersMarianna Fotaki
central and eastern Europe,CEE,renewable Central and eastern Europe: a renewable-energy win-winPaweł Czyżak
Cape Town,inequality Tackling inequality in the city—Cape TownWarren Smit

Other Social Europe Publications

Bildschirmfoto 2023 05 08 um 21.36.25 scaled 1 RE No. 13: Failed Market Approaches to Long-Term Care
front cover Towards a social-democratic century?
Cover e1655225066994 National recovery and resilience plans
Untitled design The transatlantic relationship
Women Corona e1631700896969 500 Women and the coronavirus crisis

ETUI advertisement

The four transitions and the missing one

Europe is at a crossroads, painfully navigating four transitions (green, digital, economic and geopolitical) at once but missing the transformative and ambitious social transition it needs. In other words, if the EU is to withstand the storm, we do not have the luxury of abstaining from reflecting on its social foundations, of which intermittent democratic discontent is only one expression. It is against this background that the ETUI/ETUC publishes its annual flagship publication Benchmarking Working Europe 2023, with the support of more than 70 graphs and a special contribution from two guest editors, Professors Kalypso Nikolaidïs and Albena Azmanova.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Unaffordable and inadequate housing in Europe

Unaffordable housing is a matter of great concern in the European Union. It leads to homelessness, housing insecurity, financial strain and inadequate housing. It also prevents young people from leaving their family home. These problems affect people’s health and wellbeing, embody unequal living conditions and opportunities, and result in healthcare costs, reduced productivity and environmental damage.

This new report maps housing problems in the EU and the policies that address them, drawing on Eurofound’s Living, working and Covid-19 e-survey, EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions and input from the Network of Eurofound Correspondents.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

The spring issue of the Progressive Post magazine from FEPS is out!

The Special Coverage of this new edition is dedicated to Feminist Foreign Policy, to try to gauge its potential but also the risk that it could be perceived as another attempt by the west to impose its vision on the global south.

In this issue, we also look at the human cost of the war in Ukraine, analyse the increasing connection between the centre right and the far right, and explore the difficulties, particularly for women, of finding a good work-life balance and living good working lives.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

The macroeconomic effects of re-applying the EU fiscal rules

Against the background of the European Commission's reform plans for the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), this policy brief uses the macroeconometric multi-country model NiGEM to simulate the macroeconomic implications of the most relevant reform options from 2024 onwards. Next to a return to the existing and unreformed rules, the most prominent options include an expenditure rule linked to a debt anchor.

Our results for the euro area and its four biggest economies—France, Italy, Germany and Spain—indicate that returning to the rules of the SGP would lead to severe cuts in public spending, particularly if the SGP rules were interpreted as in the past. A more flexible interpretation would only somewhat ease the fiscal-adjustment burden. An expenditure rule along the lines of the European Fiscal Board would, however, not necessarily alleviate that burden in and of itself.

Our simulations show great care must be taken to specify the expenditure rule, such that fiscal consolidation is achieved in a growth-friendly way. Raising the debt ceiling to 90 per cent of gross domestic product and applying less demanding fiscal adjustments, as proposed by the IMK, would go a long way.


DOWNLOAD HERE

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Membership

Advertisements

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Social Europe Archives

Search Social Europe

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Follow us

RSS Feed

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on LinkedIn

Follow us on YouTube