“The large digital corporations pay absurdly little tax on their profits in Germany,” but make “outrageously high profits,” criticizes Green Bundestag member Karoline Otte in an interview with the newspaper “Das Parlament”. She is calling for a digital tax of ten percent on the sales of big tech companies. In doing so, it distances itself from the proposal of the independent Minister of State for Culture Wolfram Weimer for a digital levy.

Otte says: “Mr. Weimer wants a digital levy that should flow into the cultural industry for a specific purpose. He has not yet explained exactly how this will work. In Germany, it is not so easy to introduce a earmarked levy. We expressly do not want that, but plead for a digital tax. The revenue from this should then flow into the federal budget.” Otte expects annual tax revenues of 19 billion euros.

The first reading of the motion of the parliamentary group of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen to introduce a digital tax took place in the Bundestag on 15 April.

MedLabPortal publishes the interview, which will only be published tomorrow, with the kind permission of the German Bundestag in advance:

The Parliament: Ms. Otte, the independent Minister of State for Culture WoIfram Weimer, like your parliamentary group, wants to make the big digital corporations such as Google, Apple or Amazon pay. Have you already offered him honorary membership in the Greens?

Karoline Otte: If Mr. Weimer were actually working to ensure that something would change in terms of tax for large digital corporations in Germany, then we could certainly start talking about cooperation. At the moment, he is only throwing suggestions into the room. He would have to talk to his cabinet colleague, the Federal Minister of Finance, about how his proposals can be implemented.

Das Parliament: But in terms of content, you are basically on the same page, aren’t you?

Otte: No, there is a substantial difference. Mr. Weimer wants a digital levy that should flow into the cultural industry for a specific purpose. He has not yet explained exactly how this will work. In Germany, it is not so easy to introduce a earmarked levy. We expressly do not want that, but plead for a digital tax. The revenue from this is then to flow into the federal budget. It is then our task as members of the Bundestag to use them responsibly. We also want a broader tax base. Mr. Weimer only wants to prove advertising revenues with his levy, we also want to prove all other sales.

The Parliament: The ratio of the tax burden for citizens and companies to economic output is already very high in Germany. Do even higher taxes really make sense?

Otte: The large digital corporations pay absurdly little tax on their profits in Germany, just 3.4 percent. If we tax their sales at ten percent, we will earn 19 billion euros per year, which we can use, for example, to close the huge financing deficit of our cities and municipalities. The municipalities closed last year with a minus of 30 billion euros.

The Parliament: Can the holes in the public coffers really be plugged with ever higher taxes?

Otte: The tax burden in Germany is no higher than in other countries. On the contrary: millionaires and especially billionaires pay damn little tax in the Federal Republic, for example.

Parliament: However, the tax ratio, which includes social security contributions in addition to taxes, is high by international standards.

Otte: It is true that the middle of society is heavily burdened by social security contributions. We can reduce the contribution rates here if we put more tax money into the social system. For example, we will probably not be able to avoid giving a higher tax subsidy to the statutory health insurance funds, but not if this is financed by an increase in VAT, as the federal government is currently planning. This tax mainly burdens people with low incomes. So it’s better if we tax Google, Meta, Amazon or Apple adequately.

The Parliament: The European level is also discussing a digital tax. Does it make sense to go it alone at national level?

Otte: The EU level is exactly the right place to tax the big tech companies. But until an agreement is reached there, the EU’s economically strongest country should lead the way and pave the way. Other countries such as Italy and France have already had functioning digital taxes for years. Incidentally, this is another advantage of our approach of a tax solution compared to the concept of the tax of the Minister of State for Culture and the Media: a digital tax at the national level can be transferred relatively easily to the European level, while a digital tax would stand in the way of a European solution.

The Parliament: Will the digital corporations pass on a tax on their sales to consumers and make digital services more expensive as a result?

Otte: Passing this tax on to users is unlikely to be possible in this very complex market. At the same time, I would like to emphasise once again that digital companies currently achieve a return on sales of 40 percent in the EU. These are outrageously high profits that are ultimately made with our data and us as customers. This is where we come in and expect everyone who wants to earn money in Germany and Europe to participate fairly in the financing of our community.

Parliament: US President Trump has already threatened to react to a digital tax in Europe with higher tariffs. Is it wise to push the issue forward in the current situation?

Otte: We can’t allow US companies to do what they want here in Europe. Huge sums are earned in the EU and simply transferred to the USA. We must not stand idly by. Unfortunately, the federal government is doing just that and even creating further loopholes.

The Parliament: In what way?

Otte: Last fall, the so-called license barrier was abolished. This regulation in tax law was intended to prevent internationally active corporations from shifting profits to branches or subsidiaries in countries with low tax rates via licence fees or trademark rights. The abolition of the licensing barrier was justified by the introduction of the global minimum tax, which is intended to ensure fair taxation of companies worldwide. However, the global minimum tax for corporations does not apply at all in the USA. The United States is expressly excluded from this. The American minimum tax applies to them, which is much less strict.

Parliament: The licensing barrier was intended as a transitional instrument until the introduction of the global minimum tax. Since the latter exists, it was consequently abolished.

Otte: The global minimum tax will not work as long as the US is not on board. Accordingly, the license barrier would still have been needed and it would have had to be applied in particular to the USA.

The Parliament: What do you say to workers in the German export industry if Trump raises tariffs on European products in response?

Otte: The question is whether Trump really does that. The US president can cite a thousand reasons to escalate a customs dispute. But Trump should have noticed by now that higher tariffs also make Americans’ lives more expensive. At this point, when it comes to the US tech billionaires, we have the upper hand. We have to recognize that for ourselves!

The Parliament: The US companies are already very annoyed about the EU regulation with the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. Does it make sense to intensify the confrontation with a digital tax?

Otte: It is important to address both the question of fair taxation and the question of fair competition in the EU. That is why the digital tax is needed just as much as the consistent implementation of EU regulations.

Karoline Otte has been a member of the German Bundestag since 2021. She is a full member of the finance committee for her parliamentary group.

The interview was conducted by Stephan Balling.

Read Also:

ASKED ABOUT NIS-2: “The Cyber Cent would make laboratories fit for the current threats” – MedLabPortal

---

Editor: X-Press Journalistenbüro GbR

Gender Notice. The personal designations used in this text always refer equally to female, male and diverse persons. Double/triple naming and gendered designations are used for better readability. ected.