RT is highlighting tweets that are spreading misinformation. For example:
> I'm so confused, @YouTube and @AdSense are updating their terms so that all Non-U.S. Creators now have to pay American Taxes on all of their earnings.
No, it's on US sourced income. RT clearly knows this tweet is untrue, in the third paragraph they explain this is only on US sourced revenue, yet they still promote it.
Another one:
> It seems that even if you live outside of the US, and are not a US citizen and therefore owe the IRS no taxes
No, it's US sourced income, therefore the US government can levy taxes on it.
Another one:
> You are really giving a huge middle finger to creators who now have to pay DOUBLE TAX.
No, they are only double taxed if the country they reside in does not have a double taxation agreement with the US. More than 60 countries have a double taxation agreement with the US. I believe the majority of creators will not double taxed.
The title and contents are chosen to promote maximum outrage. Even a cursory reading of the original source https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/101463270 dispels these claims.
This article should be replaced by the original source.
It makes absolutely no sense that a non-American has to pay up to 24% tax on money from American viewership, and then again pay income tax.
As far as I know, there is no other countries in the world with such an insane policy. Being subject to taxes from a country you don't belong to exactly as if you lived there (these aren't sales taxes), is completely unreasonable.
Remember, this is on top of existing sales taxes, what it really is is the US trying to double-tax non-US citizens on their income.
The title is reasonable.
I don't think YouTube or Google is collecting tax just for fun or to punish their content creators.
Any time the US does something, the reaction is always strangely different than when other players like the EU do the same thing...
This is inherent in being the most powerful country in the world. The US has the ability to do it, so why wouldn't they? You're not a US citizen, so the federal government cares even less about abstract fairness than they usually do.
If US people visit the UK, our shops don't charge and pay sales tax in the US.
Really it should be about where the server is I suppose, regardless of whether the viewer is American or not.
The internet is interesting and messy and laws & regulation are far from caught up.
Additionally, most European countries permit duty-free sales to foreign citizens in normal stores under the right conditions (often via requiring a passport to be shown at purchase, and via refunding the taxes at airport when leaving the country). This arrangement works because, it's generally required that travelers pay customs on arrival to their home countries on goods purchased abroad anyway. That being said, I've just learnt that the UK has killed their duty-free sales system as of 2021 [1], which is just stupid.
[1] https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/uk-to-axe-duty-free-...
Is it more accurate to say US sourced net income? It's amazing how massive companies can put their HQ in a tax haven and avoid US taxes completely while small creators are going to have withholdings from their revenue (ie: max taxes with zero expenses until they file a return to show net income, right?).
It's a terrible deal for Canadians who will be paying US taxes without living in the US. Will they be eligible for US social programs, etc.? Why should the first 15% (IIRC) of income taxes from YouTubers go to the US? That's BS.
If I were a creator I'd already be looking into setting up two companies. One would create and license content to the second. The second would have the relationship with YouTube and would only make a very small amount of profit. That's not advice. I don't have a clue how it actually works
If it were YouTube on the hook for the taxes, you can be guaranteed there'd already be some corporate structure set up to avoid those taxes. Why can't there be a YouTube Canada that runs at a very thin (almost zero) margin by selling ad space for Canadian YouTube channels to YouTube US and paying out Canadian YouTubers with the revenue?
that's because corporations get taxed on profit, and individuals get taxed on income. profits can be rerouted to more tax-favorable jurisdictions, but it's much harder to pull off with personal income.
>It's a terrible deal for Canadians who will be paying US taxes without living in the US. Will they be eligible for US social programs, etc.? Why should the first 15% (IIRC) of income taxes from YouTubers go to the US? That's BS.
In the case of canada (and other countries with a tax treaty with the US), this is a non-issue because you either pay 0% withholding or can deduct the tax from your country's tax return (presumably the tax treaty also contains provisions for your country to net out the difference with the US).
So you will have to file a tax return and get the money back just like every other income earner in the country. The real issue imho is that the bulk of youtubers probably aren't properly filing any returns in any country.
I have a young guy working for me who does game streaming on weekends. I think he earned a few thousand dollars last year. He had no idea that such income was taxable, that he would actually have to hand over part of it to the government despite it not coming from his fulltime job. I think he would prefer google withhold those dollars.
How come they’re implementing this suddenly? They didn’t respect laws for years? It has nothing to do with the law.
I wouldn't say that they are totally unbiased, but the BBC is the most respected international news organization on the planet today. The are definitely pro-western democracy, as opposed to RT, but if the BBC broadcasts outright lies there are open processes to force corrections. The BBC has oversight whereas RT is a closed box that can do as they please.
This is going to be extremely confusing for creators. I can't imagine anyone but the very largest YouTubers being able to handle getting taxed in multiple countries and figure out what exactly they need to pay at home.
Actually, the large YouTubers may be better of simply demonetizing they videos and just sell sponsored videos and embedded ads directly.
Also Alphabet is a Delaware incorporated company - tax haven, plus there's the good ol' tax haven of Dublin that FANGs love and Google is located in, like Facebook, Amazon, insert other multi-billion turnover company.
For anyone interested in Ireland's tax loopholes: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/explainer-google...
Since when is YouTube more powerful than national governments? People seem to be under some confusion as to how business works. The governments tell YouTube what YouTube has to do to operate in their jurisdiction, and YouTube either does it, or leaves that jurisdiction.
If Togo made the demand, you can leave. If the US or Germany make the demand, you say, "Right away sirs", and you start collecting their taxes.
Other gouvernement will take notice.
But yeah, YouTubers are going to be confused. And it makes me wonder, what's next? What about ad revenue from Google / Facebook? Or is that handled through their offices in Ireland?
What other countries have major services like YouTube that pay their content creators in the US where they could 'do the same for them'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_withholding#International_...
We may simply impose tax on their global profits after some system of dividing them fairly.
Fair Taxation of the Digital Economy: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/f...
How are they able to generate the income? Through the services YouTube provides from the US. How is YouTube able to provide those services? Because the US government creates infrastructure to enable it. How is that infrastructure paid for? Taxes. Hence they tax the income.
I’m not arguing for/against btw. Just asking about the technical reason.
Hearty laugh.
Yes, to a degree, but at the current time (and for a good long time) the US government does not even pretend to try. Tell me a significant infrastructure package since the interstates.
Many relevant infrastructure are created by telecom companies, should we owe taxes to those too?
1. You send me a Youtube URL
2. I load that page in my browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Android, iPhone, Desktop, anything)
3. I watch the video 1. You send me a peertube -- any peertube URL
2. I load that page in my browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Android, iPhone, Desktop, anything)
3. I watch the video
I'm not sure there are many video platforms with as much reach as youtube has.
I'll admit as a user I often ignore video links that aren't youtube because of the kludgy experiences on other video sites...
Since the middle of June 2020 I've been growing my channel, now it has 40k subscribers.
I'm not there yet, but I can easily see a near future where I make more money from YT directly than I ever made as a Software Engineer (NOT FAANG level). So I just film what I love doing (exploring, hiking, tinkering, travel), and that's my career.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/news/2021/02/governm...
The max unemployment given per month does not cover rent for most people in a mid to high cost of living area. It just seems insane to decide that that income should be taxed as well.
I helped someone go through the process. It definitely does for California.
In what situation is the income tax over 100%
I wonder though if there would be any interesting things loopholes this whole thing would open up actually.
on edit: actually if I was to try to do something with YouTube given this rule I would probably want to incorporate before creating my channel, although I suppose most people would not have that recourse.
At any rate I would definitely be deducting the American taxes, if I was hit with a situation like this.
I guess though with Google doing it there are all sorts of things that won't be too the creator's benefit - for example if I got 10000 before and spent 2000 on things I could deduct in my home country and now I get 8000 because America takes 2000 I might not take that 2000 deduction in my home country because I need the money for other non-deductable things, whereas taking a deduction on American taxes will probably be more difficult for me than it is for deducting things locally - ugh, I can see how it would make you pissed off.
Glad I don't deal with Google.
There will be youtubers forced to pay income tax to the US government only for it to be used for war against them.
So, the Canadian creator complaining should in theory be able to file a W-8BEN form with youtube showing Canadian beneficial ownership of the channel, and then the tax rate will be 0% due to the US Canada tax treaty. The creator will likely need an ITIN as well.
Not a lawyer. Just have done this for royalties via amazon’s printing company. Amazon otherwise would have had to withhold 15% of the income.
If I purchase a good or service from the US, the only taxes I'm liable to pay are VAT (sales tax in American terms) and if it's above a certain value, customs charges. These are billed to me, they're not taken out of the American company's share. Companies used to dealing with the EU will show the marked up price and handle the details, most will at least use a delivery company that understands the process and then I pay via the delivery company and then only for the most clueless who've done neither will I get a postman showing up expecting payment before handing it over (or I guess if the value was high enough, a letter from customs asking for payment before they release my goods.
None of this process subjects the American company selling me goods or services to e.g. Irish corporation tax, so I don't understand why if the process was reversed and an individual was providing them a good or service (like Google surely views creators as, I highly doubt they want them considered employees), so I don't understand why reversing the flow should subject YouTubers to US income tax. It feels to me the worst case scenario should be something like the W-8 process where the international creator files some paperwork to say they're not in the United States.
Compare that to some mid sized retailer located in one country who adds international shipping as an option
This thread seems to be full of arguments that YouTube's product (customer eyeballs) should induce a tax for YouTube's suppliers (content creators they pay) even when YouTube's suppliers and YouTube's customers (advertisement purchasers) aren't even located in the US.
I'm assuming Youtube already pay taxes in all countries they have revenue in?
Charging taxes per business entity, means no one can hide from Uncle Sam, and they can tax YouTube itself as well!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/26/russia...
I would have expected for youtube to work the same.
[1] http://www.kongregate.com/de/pages/international-tax-faq
[2] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/tax-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeKEtf8A3FU
Support page that goes into detail:
Will be interesting to see what (if any) knock on effect it will have in regards to other tax jurisdictions.