
Canada axes digital tax to ease Trump trade tensions – DW – 06/30/2025
Canada has canceled its digital services tax (DST) to entice the United States to return to the negotiating table for a long-awaited trade and defense deal.
The tax, which was due to take effect on Monday, would have applied a 3% levy on revenues earned within Canada by companies — from any country — whose services are digitally based and earn more than 20 million Canadian dollars ($14.7 million, €12.4 million) per year.
But the DST was the target on Friday of a now familiar missive from US President Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform. There, he labeled the tax as a "direct and blatant attack" on the US and set the clock ticking on new tariffs for his northern neighbor as he put trade negotiations on ice.
While DSTs from Canada and other nations avoid naming specific companies among their targets, there is an inescapable reality that such instruments catch a swathe of American companies in their nets — among them digital behemoths like Meta, Google, Amazon, Airbnb and Uber.
The tax's impact was compounded by its retroactive nature, capturing all revenues back to 2022, a boon that would have yielded more than $2 billion to Canada's finances.
Binning the tax on the day it came into effect has potentially prevented Canada from feeling the brunt of harsher Trump tariffs and the loss of a trade deal with a significant trading partner. At the very least, it's brought the US president back to the negotiating table.
Last year, Canada bought nearly $350 billion in US products and exported more than $412 billion to the US.
"Obviously, the revenue from digital services taxes will be much lower than any costs from potential trade conflicts," said Bertin Martens, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based economic think tank Bruegel. "This is the right road to take at this moment for Canada, at least."
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Big tech companies make billions in revenue globally and there are few places that haven't been touched by the presence of the dominant US players in e-commerce, digital advertising and social media.
But taxation of these businesses largely falls to the country where they are headquartered. For the majors, it's usually in the US, or even low-taxing countries like Ireland or Luxembourg.
It's why other countries are turning to DSTs to recoup revenue for operating within their borders. While Canada's DST has been shelved, other countries across the Atlantic have been reaping revenues for years.
France, Italy, Spain and the UK have revenue taxes for digital services providers, with criteria requiring a company to meet a minimum level of global revenue, a fraction of which is made within their borders. France, Italy and Spain apply a tax of 3% on those revenues, the UK 2%. France is even looking to increase its rate to 5%.
"Big US tech companies that operate in Europe and elsewhere in the world pay very little, if any, taxes in the countries where they operate and collect substantial revenue and profits," Martens told DW. "But nothing of that can be taxed in the country itself, and so, in the absence of an OECD agreement on how to do this, countries have taken this in their own hands."
The US has historically taken a dim view towards foreign digital services taxes under the last three administrations, Democrat and Republican, with a view that they amount to import tariffs on services.
"It's not just Preisdent Trump, it was President Biden too, it is members of the US Congress in both parties, Republican and Democrat, that agree that DSTs are not appropriate for other countries to adopt," said James Hines, a professor of law and economics at the University of Michigan, US.
"A tax that really is designed just to hit hard the American tech companies, which is what DSTs are," Hines said. "I'm sure the Trump administration is very serious about being upset about DSTs, and being willing to retaliate."
That leaves open the question of whether other countries will be pressured to drop theirs.
"I think the EU could also be persuaded to withdraw these taxes, but the problem is that the EU Commission, as a trade negotiator, has no leverage on member states' taxation policies," said Martens. "It can try to pass the message to member states, but whether they will accept it or not is a different matter."
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
The Biden administration opposed DSTs but worked to broker a global trade deal via the OECD. That agreement was scuttled by Trump upon his return to the White House, leaving the prospect of unilateral DSTs back on the table.
Despite American opposition to these agreements, Allison Christians, a tax law professor at McGill University in Canada, said the idea that major tech corporations should only be taxed in their home country is "antiquated."
"They're headquartered in the US, yes, but they're capitalized all over the world, and they're collecting data all over the world, and they're making profit all over the world," Christians said.
That, she said, makes it harder for local companies to compete with their "highly digitalized" US rivals. Martens agrees that DSTs are a response to the desire for other nations to have a level playing field.
"There is this distorted playing field between local companies and foreign — in this case US — companies, in online markets," Martens said. "Local companies obviously pay local taxes in the country where they are established, and US companies can avoid that or circumvent that through preferential tax deals with tax havens like Ireland or Luxembourg, or even through repatriation of lots of their profits to the US.
Martens said a global agreement like those brokered by the OECD would be a better way to proceed. But without US support, national-level taxes are likely to remain, at least until they appear again as a trade negotiation tool.
"[DSTs] have become tangled up in this Trump administration trade policy debates, and that makes a debate even more complicated," Martens said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Int'l Business Times
32 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
Musk Praising Trump Hours After President Appeared to Consider His Deportation Sparks Mockery Online: 'Scared Elon?'
Billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk commended the Trump administration for securing peace in conflicts around the world just days after the two men exchanged jabs at each other, causing social media users to mock him. President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Tuesday to announce that his administration had successfully convinced Israel to agree to a 60-day ceasefire in their war with Hamas. "My Representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza. Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War," Trump began. "The Qataris and Egyptians, who have worked very hard to help bring Peace, will deliver this final proposal. I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" he added. Following this news, Musk commented on Trump's foreign policy initiatives on X (formerly Twitter). "Credit where credit is due. @realDonaldTrump has successfully resolved several serious conflicts around the world," he wrote. Social media users quickly took to online platforms to mock the SpaceX CEO for speaking positively of the 47th president just after Trump appeared to threaten to deport Musk. "You are such a kiss-a**.. Tell us more about the Epstein Files.." one user said, referring to a now-deleted tweet during Musk and Trump's first pubic feud in which Musk alleged that Trump was named in the files on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. "Elon trying not to get deported," joked another. "Bro is trying hard not to get deported," one user added. "You are scared of deportation Elon? You are buttering you bread now," another said. Trump appeared to have not ruled out the possibility of Musk's deportation while speaking to reporters on Tuesday just before he travelled to Ochopee, Florida, to visit newly opened migrant detention facility known as "Alligator Alcatraz." One reporter questioned if Trump had considered deporting the Tesla CEO and his former close ally. "I don't know, I mean, we'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon, you know? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible?" Trump replied. Originally published on Latin Times


Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
The Job Market Just Blinked — And It's Time To Pay Attention
The American job market has looked like the one thing you could count on—resilient, reliable, still rolling forward. But today's ADP employment report may be the first real sign that it's starting to lose steam. In June, private-sector payrolls shrank by 33,000 jobs, according to the report from ADP and the Stanford Digital Economy Lab. That's not just a slowdown—it's a reversal. It's also the first monthly drop in ADP's numbers since June 2010, not counting the pandemic. And it's not the kind of data that shows up when things are going well. If you're an everyday worker, this is the kind of number that doesn't make headlines at first—but shows up later in slower hiring, weaker raises, and longer job searches. A Market Cooling Below the Surface On the surface, many labor indicators still look healthy. The government's May data showed unemployment steady at 4.2%, with job openings holding strong above 7.8 million. But the disconnect is growing. Continuing unemployment claims are rising. High-paying service sectors—finance, professional business services, tech—are showing signs of contraction. Construction employment has taken a sharp dip in several regions, and federal hiring is quietly drying up as agencies implement cost-cutting mandates. Meanwhile, wage growth is slowing, and many younger and lower-income workers are struggling to find roles that match their education and experience. Big Policy, Big Impact Part of this shift can be traced to the administration's signature economic package, dubbed the "Big Beautiful Bill." On paper, it's a long-term investment in infrastructure, green energy, and industrial revitalization. But in the short term, it's creating friction. In sectors like healthcare, construction, and government contracting, the transition to new standards and federal guidelines has slowed hiring—or even led to layoffs—while companies wait for clarity. At the same time, a new wave of tariffs on Chinese goods—especially electronics, vehicles, and green technologies—is creating fresh uncertainty across industries. Businesses are facing higher input costs, while global supply chains remain tangled. This uncertainty is being passed down the line, and many companies are hitting pause on expansion, hiring, or capital spending. A Moment of Transition, Not Collapse It's important to keep perspective: one bad month doesn't make a crisis. But when job growth disappears—particularly after a long stretch of gains—it tends to mark an inflection point. The private sector losing jobs while job postings remain high is a red flag. It suggests demand is becoming more cautious, and that some employers are choosing not to fill roles that would have been automatic just a year ago. We're likely seeing the labor market shift from hot to lukewarm, especially as the Federal Reserve holds rates high to contain inflation. Ironically, if hiring keeps slowing, it could prompt the Fed to cut rates sooner, with speculation already mounting around a September move. What This Means for Americans For workers, the practical impact will differ by industry. In healthcare and hospitality, jobs are still being added. But for office workers, new graduates, and contractors tied to government work, the road ahead could be slower. Hiring managers may be more selective. Raises could be smaller. And job-seekers might need to cast a wider net. While the labor market hasn't collapsed, it's sending out signals of fatigue. This report doesn't spell doom—but it does mark a turning point. If the last two years were defined by resilience, the next few might be defined by adjustment.


DW
4 hours ago
- DW
How Elon Musk's third party threat could disrupt US politics – DW – 07/01/2025
Elon Musk wants to shake up the two-party system in the US after clashing with Donald Trump — but history hasn't been kind to third parties. It appears the world's wealthiest person has set his mind to a new startup: his own political party. As the ongoing public fracturing of the relationship between the US President Donald Trump and his top election financier continues to play out in public, Elon Musk has again vented his opposition to the so-called "Big Beautiful Bill," a tax and spending bill, which he believes undoes the efficiency mantra he sought to instill in Washington. Musk has gone as far to warn Republican lawmakers who pass the bill that he'll run candidates against them in next year's primaries. And he also threatened the broader US two-party system with the promise he'll form a faction of his own. "If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day," he wrote on X. "Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE." A genuinely competitive third party would upend more than a century of Democrats-Republicans dominance at all levels of government. Yet few have come close, despite dozens of minor parties operating across the US for decades. The Libertarian Party, established in 1971, is the third biggest in America. Campaigning for free markets, small government and personal freedoms, it had its best presidential election performance in 2016 with candidate Gary Johnson, who won 3.27% of the nationwide vote. But that's a long way from the tens of millions of votes needed to win the White House, a governorship or even a state legislature seat. The Green Party is another long-running party that has run candidates in state and federal races. Like the Libertarians, it too holds no seats in government. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The very nature of the American political system is the "winner takes all" principle through the widespread use of a "first past the post" voting system. This delivers victory to candidates with the most votes — almost always a Republican or Democrat. There are other factors hampering success, according to Bernard Tamas, a political scientist at Valdosta State University, US, who has written extensively on the subject. Tamas said it's fundamental for a third party to tap into popular unrest — a large number of people who are dissatisfied with the current political options — and build a groundswell grassroots movement. "One of the biggest problems with the parties that have emerged is that they're not really tapping into that anger," Tamas said. Upstart parties instead "tend to be more wishy-washy and [are] not really focusing in on that strong urge for change." If tapping into grassroots is essential, so is money. Parties spend billions of dollars to get their candidates elected. According to donations watchdog OpenSecrets, nearly $16 billion (about €13.58 billion) was spent across the 2024 presidential and congressional races. Musk himself was the biggest donor in the 2023-24 election cycle. He gave more than $291 million to Republicans across all races. Massive campaign war chests help parties "get out the vote" — buying the advertising and campaigning materials that expose candidates to the public and earn their vote. It doesn't guarantee a win — the Democrats spent more than the Republicans in 2024 — but it certainly helps. "You need money for things like ballot access and a number of other things, but no third party would ever have enough money to compete against the Republicans and Democrats on their own terms," said Tamas. Could a genuine third party supplant the Democrats or Republicans? It's unlikely in Tamas's view. Instead of winning seats and building long-term success, Tamas said they instead "sting like a bee." "They emerge very quickly, they run a bunch of candidates all over the country and then they cause one or both major parties major pain," Tamas said. "They basically are pulling away votes." This is called the "spoiler effect", where protest candidates leech votes away from an often ideologically similar mainstream candidate. In some cases, they could pull away enough votes that a frontrunner loses the lead and falls to second place. It's the fear of a third party groundswell that causes the major parties to alter their policies to appease these voters. Once the change is achieved, like a bee that's stung its victim,"it dies." "The most successful third parties in America last about a decade. Once they become too much of a threat, the major parties start stealing their rhetoric, their ideology," said Tamas. Not all Americans are happy with their options. Donald Trump's net approval rating is in negative territory and YouGov's latest polls found almost 3 in 5 Americans view the Democratic Party unfavorably. In 2022, a Pew Research analysis found overall support for more parties in the political system. But it doesn't mean a new party would succeed. A study by two US political scientists in May 2024 found "disaffected partisans" — Republicans and Democrats unsatisfied with their own parties — were less likely to vote for a third, more centrist alternative. Tapping into popular anger and frustration with the status quo, Tamas said, is the fastest pathway to success. For a person like Musk, he might do well to look towards the "Fight Oligarchy" movement of left-wing opponents like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders currently touring America, or the original MAGA movement, if he wants to start a party. "These are very good examples to follow… the tapping into people's grievances is really it," Tamas said. "They force the [major] parties to respond by threatening their careers and their livelihood."