The Anti-Competitive EU

Now the European Commission wants to tax “behemoth” digitally-oriented multinational companies for doing business within the EU.  The only companies that fit the EC’s definition of behemoth—large firms with annual worldwide revenue above €750 million ($922 million) and annual taxable EU revenues above €50 million ($61.5 million)—are American companies like Alphabet through its Google subsidiary, Apple, and Amazon.com.

That taxable EU revenue is key here.

The EU says these firms have exploited loopholes in tax laws and managed to lower their tax bills by shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions within the EU such as Ireland and Luxembourg.

The effective corporate tax rate paid by digital firms amounts to just 9.5%, but traditional businesses pay about 23.3%, according to EU data.

But the measure is likely to pit low-tax European member states against countries like France and Germany, which have often complained about digital companies’ aggressive cross-border tax planning….

Heaven forfend the EU should lower, or allow its member nations to lower, those traditional business’ effective tax rates to the 9-10% range.  On the contrary, the EU is adamantly opposed to tax rate competition and to lowering member nations’ tax rates.  All members much charge substantially the same high tax rates.

And this anti-competitive, so say nothing about anti-liberty, position:

the European authorities’ push for more control over how the digital world operates.

This is the tax portion of the EU’s mercantilist push for protectionism, even as it decries what it sees as American protectionism.  The EU, though, is aiming its moves at its own members as well as the outside world.

Free Speech

The Supreme Court has taken up the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (Nifla) v Becerra, whose proximate subject centers on abortion rights but whose real subject is freedom of  speech.

California’s Reproductive FACT Act, the law in question in NIFLA, requires pro-life centers to advise their clients of the availability of abortion centers.  This is forced speech, and it destroys the 1st Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech, since speech cannot be freely spoken if it cannot also be freely not spoken.  This is as true for factual speech as it is for opinion speech.

The Supreme Court expressly held as much…when it rejected a distinction between compelled statements of opinion and compelled statements of fact, finding that “either form of compulsion burdens protected speech.”

Indeed. And one obvious consequence of losing that distinction (by, for instance, ruling for Becerra rather than for NIFLA) would be to expose all news outlets to lawsuits over their editorial choices of what sets of facts to publish and what to withhold in every single article they publish.