
Spanish authorities raid Google offices over tax - cocotino
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-probe-spain-idUSKCN0ZG1AC
======
melenaboija
I don't think there is a justification for big corporations to do what they do
and they have to be pursued. I've been working for a bank in a tax haven in
Europe and I've seen that financial engineering powerful people use has been a
known and accepted tool for the governments for a while, and now that Europe
is living a financial crisis governments start asking.

These companies play in an absolutely different league than employees, self
employed and small companies in Europe where they make you pay strictly all
the taxes to mantain our social structure. They have big teams of lawyers,
financial experts and advisors specialized in tax havens just to make grow
their revenues in billions avoiding to pay taxes in the countries they have
presence.

Totally unfair for regular people like me.

[http://www.uspirgedfund.org/reports/usp/offshore-shell-
games...](http://www.uspirgedfund.org/reports/usp/offshore-shell-games-2015)

~~~
wyager
Why are you blaming the companies for acting rationally, rather than the
governments for creating absurd tax environments?

I agree it's unfair, but I can't fault anyone for trying to legally minimize
their tax burden. Tax law should just be simple enough that anyone can do it
themselves.

~~~
antr
I'm an energy investor and get to work with tax advisors and lawyers very
often in order to maximise tax structures and cash repatriation. Everything we
do is approved by tax authorities and positively seen by our shareholders. I
agree to a certain extent with you that companies are acting rationally. I can
assure you it's my responsibility to make the best use of these tools.

However, the direct and indirect pressure large companies exert on governments
to promote/create these loopholes is absurd. I recently went to a latin
american country which is promoting foreign investment. Guess what tools they
are using to promote such FDI? Correct, tax credits, tax agreements with tax
heavens, zero withholding taxes on dividends, etc. I won't go into more
detail, but I've seen obscene (but legal) tax structures were little-to-no
corporate taxes nor capital gains taxes have been paid in +billion euro
transactions.

IMHO, this is unfair to everyday citizens. Citizens end up taking the burden
of supporting the govt budget, at the expense of higher tax rates.

Unfortunately in the EU, there is very little interest from countries like The
Netherlands, Ireland, and Luxembourg in implementing a common fiscal policy,
with no loopholes, as this would considerably damage their "competitive"
economies.

~~~
simonh
Ok, but that's not tax avoidance because the companies are absolutely
following government rules. Given the choice of having billions of dollars of
investment in their country and thousands of jobs but no corporate tax; or no
investment and no jobs and no tax, those governments are making a rational
choice.

The real problem comes when these deals disadvantage local businesses
competing with the big foreign conglomerates. But often these deals are really
only necessary because the government has set up ridiculously high trade
barriers, so the only way to get investment is with ludicrously generous
deals. Brazil seems to be a classic example of this. The entire economic
system is tangled mess of massive market distortions.

~~~
gozur88
>Ok, but that's not tax avoidance because the companies are absolutely
following government rules.

You're mixing up terms here. Tax avoidance is minimizing your tax bill within
the law. Tax _evasion_ is what you do when you pay less tax than your legal
obligation.

------
SixSigma
Google uses Bermuda (a British overseas territory) to avoid tax liability in
the EU

“Google has paid €8.8 billion in fees to Bermuda,” S&D group MEP Peter Simon
complained. [1]

The irony being that the current president of the European Commission, Jean-
Claude Juncker, was Prime Minister of Luxembourg when his administration was
organising the low tax environment. [2] [3]

And now the EU claims that "the Anti Tax Avoidance Package is part of the
Commission's ambitious agenda for fairer, simpler and more effective corporate
taxation in the EU." [4]

[1] [http://www.euractiv.com/section/public-
affairs/news/google-f...](http://www.euractiv.com/section/public-
affairs/news/google-facebook-and-amazon-forced-to-face-meps-tax-questions/)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-
Claude_Juncker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks)

[4]
[http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/an...](http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/anti_tax_avoidance/index_en.htm)

~~~
alkonaut
How can this still be possible? Shouldn't all tax legislation be such that if
you break the spirit of it by having internal transfers (royalties, fees,
interest) to a low-tax area, then you are still taxed based on the business
that you had in the country in question, and not based on the net sum (i.e.
zero).

The current state of tax law is that a billion dollar company pays almost no
taxes but a million dollar company pays a lot. That can't be good for anyone
(apart from the $1B company).

Are countries, simply put, afraid to put an end to tax schemes like this,
because it would just mean that Ikea or Google would pack up and leave?

~~~
zo1
" _Are countries, simply put, afraid to put an end to tax schemes like this,
because it would just mean that Ikea or Google would pack up and leave?_ "

In an "odd" application of market-competition, that is precisely what
happened. Countries where Google generally did business wanted to tax Google
at some X. Then along came Ireland, or Google found Ireland, and saw that they
could do some legal paperwork and pay Ireland's tax rate of X-Y instead of X
in the "source" countries.

The point I'm making is that Google did pack up and leave, and it will happen
again unless really drastic actions are taken against them. I don't think
anyone wants to do that, at this point.

You either bully _all_ countries from allowing loop holes such as this, even
though they don't want to. Or you disallow Google from operating in your
country if they don't pay taxes on the profit from "sales" you deem occurred
in your country. Small countries that want/need that tax revenue from Google,
even if it is X-Y, won't like it if you compel them into complying and causing
Google to "pack up and leave". It also puts the "bullying" nature of whatever
international body is tasked with enforcing this into light.

~~~
anonymousDan
"Then along came Ireland."

This is utter nonsense. The problem is US tax repatriation laws introduced
during the Clinton administration that allow US companies to leave their
profits offshore in countries such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. Since
they are only taxable on repatriation to the US, they pay no tax on them.
Instead, they pressure Congress to introduce 'one-off' tax amnesties that
allow them to repatriate at a much lower rate. This problem could be solved
tomorrow if US politicians rescinded those tax laws. Ireland has no legal
right to tax those profits, since they are earned by parent US company e.g.
Google US. Which is perfectly correct, since the foundation of most of those
profits are the intellectual property created primarily by the parent company.
Don't let US politicians pull the wool over your eyes that this is a problem
over which they have no control. In case you're interested, here's a good
article that gives more background:
[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-biggest-tax-
sc...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-biggest-tax-scam-
ever-20140827)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
And if they paid that tax in the US (which would then allow the US rate to be
lower for the same revenue), how would that help Spain and France? The US
would just be what Ireland currently is.

~~~
uola
> (which would then allow the US rate to be lower for the same revenue)

While I'm sure it can be minimized, the US doesn't have a particularly low
corporate income tax rate.

> And if they paid that tax in the US [...] how would that help Spain and
> France?

Companies like Google not having to pay tax on revenues outside the US is
essentially a government subsidy. One that creates a "slush fund" for US
companies to acquire their European competition. We're essentially in a trade
war, just that Europe hasn't realized it.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Companies like Google not having to pay tax on revenues outside the US is
> essentially a government subsidy. One that creates a "slush fund" for US
> companies to acquire their European competition. We're essentially in a
> trade war, just that Europe hasn't realized it.

Except that "US companies" incorporated in Ireland _aren 't_ US companies.
Can't European companies also incorporate in Ireland?

~~~
uola
No, because Google isn't paying the Irish corporate tax but instead moving the
money to a second Irish company (hence the double Irish) based in the Bahamas.
A European company with a subsidiary based in the Bahamas would trigger anti-
avoidance laws, which a US company won't (until they bring the money back into
the US) because of a loophole in the US anti-avoidance laws.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I think you misunderstand. The whole premise here is that none of the
principals care where you're incorporated.

A company whose primary employees are in Europe and whose primary customers
are in Europe can still be incorporated in Delaware and traded on the NYSE.
These tax avoidance mechanisms aren't for "US companies," they only work if
you're in practice an international company. A "European company" which is
also in practice an international company could do the same by becoming
nominally a "US company" without changing anything of consequence about their
operations. Because international companies don't really care where they're
incorporated.

The trade war isn't between US companies and European companies, it's between
companies big enough to be "international" and everybody else.

------
lazyant
Google translate of
[http://www.elmundo.es/economia/2016/06/30/5774ead6ca4741db16...](http://www.elmundo.es/economia/2016/06/30/5774ead6ca4741db168b45c9.html)

"the background of all these investigations are the lack of tax harmonization
in the EU and tax strategy of the company, like others such as Apple or
Twitter, for example. Sales declaring these firms in each country are
unrelated to their actual billing. Subsidiaries in Spain-and other European
countries act as agents of another parent company based in countries with
lower tax burdens as Holland or Ireland. National subsidiaries taxed only by
the minimum commissions they receive from their Dutch or Irish matrix, most of
the turnover recorded paying minimum tax rates."

------
josephg
I would expect google to keep all financial documents inside Google Drive. In
doing so, I wonder what is left in the office for the Spanish authorities to
find in a raid? (Google is ruthlessly paperless internally.)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Spain, and other Euro countries, have "paper" laws. Everything needs to be
printed out and stored to make raids like these easier on the government. It
also keeps their tax authority from ever having to worry about modernizing
and, frankly, makes it easier for the government to manufacture
"irregularities."

I think the financial crisis in some of these EU countries have reached a
point where they are politically paralyzed (can't move to the right due to
strong leftism in the electorate) so they'll just find a way to milk multi-
nationals to keep the lights on. This isn't a long term strategy and is a sign
of some bad stuff coming up. I believe in the long run the welfare state is
unaffordable and without a move to the right these countries will suffer,
especially as business moves to more tax friendly jurisdictions and leaves
these markets over government abuse, low sales, low margins, etc.

Currently, Spain has 25% unemployment and almost 50% for those under 25. The
GDP is falling at the same rate it is for France and Italy. The sudden
interest in these countries to raid multi-nationals for tax reasons is no
coincidence here. France just raided Google's office last month. I suspect
Italy is next.

~~~
jernfrost
You are presenting a completely biased and anti-european view, looking at
multinationals with the most rose tinted glasses.

Google, like many other multinationals pay absolutely minuscule taxes. They
have eradicated large parts of national advertisement companies across Europe,
who all have to pay normal tax rates, while Google pays close to zero.

You are not a leftwing nutjob just because you want companies to pay taxes for
the money they earn in your country. A free market relies on a level
playingfield and when multinationals can exploit loopsholes in this manner it
distorts the competition.

I am not sure why you single out Euro countries as not interested in
modernizing. I can't speak for other European countries but I can speak for
Norway where I am from and our taxation system is decades ahead of archaic
mess found in the US e.g. The fact that a large part of the American
population have to pay professionals to fill out their taxes says something
about the complexity and backwardness of the system.

~~~
jonknee
> You are not a leftwing nutjob just because you want companies to pay taxes
> for the money they earn in your country. A free market relies on a level
> playingfield and when multinationals can exploit loopsholes in this manner
> it distorts the competition.

How would you decide what money they earn in your country? It's a tricky
question for multinationals.

~~~
toyg
It is indeed, and the recent spat of seemingly-illogical laws commonly known
as "vat-mess" is the first step in trying to clarify that.

The internet is a real mess for anything that has to do with jurisdiction,
which is the underpinning of taxation. Free flow of capital could be
acceptable when goods were eventually involved, since their physical presence
decided jurisdiction; as goods become similarly immaterial, new parameters are
required. The current "equilibrium" is anything but.

------
conradfr
I heard someone related to the Paris office raid comment when that happened.
She was saying that multinational corporations always say that their
organization and tax schemes are legal but that in reality it's so complex and
spread in multiple countries that nobody really knows for sure and so it's
only legal by default.

~~~
adrianN
Isn't that true for almost everything though? The laws are so complex that no
normal citizen can understand them. Even lawyers seem to disagree now and
then.

~~~
dluan
Tax law is a math problem. Google is a company run by math nerds. Of course
they are going to solve for X.

~~~
collyw
Its also a law problem, so I would have expected Apple to have solved it
first.

~~~
jldugger
Well, the Double Irish was invented by Apple...

------
sheraz
Remember that Google was also raided in Paris almost exactly one month ago
[1].

[1] - [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/24/google-
of...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/24/google-offices-
paris-raided-french-tax-authorities)

~~~
Thimothy
I'm going to hazard a guess. The french did found something useful to crack
google down in that raid and gave their buddies in Spain a nudge so they can
combine the efforts and maybe strike a big one against the Double Irish.

~~~
ggggtez
I don't know. It's just as likely they found nothing and asked the Spanish to
take a second crack at it. Irish tax law is stupid enough already. Europe
sounds like they are jumping the gun.

------
george_ciobanu
This is ridiculous and a form of bullying. If you want multinationals to pay
tax, fix the laws. Were they really expecting Google to fake anything? No,
they were looking to cause bad press. Form international alliances and create
a proper incentive structure if you want to collect.

~~~
andrewprock
Google's tax avoidance is likewise ridiculous. Neither the bullying, nor the
avoidance are illegal. If you support one, you should support the other.

------
pfortuny
Another PR stunt of the minister, Montoro. No more than that. He also makes
public a lost of debtors to the IRS (which should be illegal but he gets away
with anything).

Edit: Spaniard here.

~~~
cocotino
"should be illegal" means it is not.

What exactly is your point? Shaming debtors of the country is not ok?

~~~
tinco
Well, I suppose anyone who is a debtor to the IRS is a criminal . In The
Netherlands it isn't legal to use the full name of a criminal in any
publication, so it could be that the EU is a bit different in the way it
treats criminals.

~~~
pfortuny
You are innocent until a judge declares you are not. Even in tax evasion.

Edit: sorry, I misunderstood your comment...

------
jordanb
Why can't Spanish (and French) authorities simply subpoena any info they need
from Google? Is Google able to shield relevant data by keeping it in Ireland
or the US?

~~~
rtkwe
If they feared that Google might destroy evidence a raid makes sense over
subpoenaing. It's also bigger and flashier so if the government wanted to make
a show of it and 'send a message' (either to other companies or just seem to
voters like they're being tough on companies dodging taxes (legally)) that's
another reason that they'd go with a raid.

------
kafkaesq
From _El País_ , a little over an hour ago:

 _In the case of the Spanish subsidiary, the Tax Office is analyzing why
Google pays so little tax in Spain despite making multimillion-selling. With
this action, the Agency 's technical investigators seek to determine if the
international structure of the world's leading Internet search engine is not
legitimate. Toward this aim they will try to prove that functionality the
group attributed to its Spanish subsidiary are less than they actually
performed._

 _The record is linked to an investigation into possible tax evasion. The
company, known for its Internet search engine, has spent years in the
crosshairs of Finance for its tax system, as part of their income managed
through Ireland. Thus, it could be artificially reducing its business in Spain
and lowering its tax bill._

Tax Office searches Google Spain and Google Ireland for evidence of tax fraud

[http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2016/06/30/actualidad/14...](http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2016/06/30/actualidad/1467280502_356974.html)

------
peter303
Panama Papers showed a significant fraction of EU officials stash money in low
tax havens. Icelands PM resigned as a result. The Panama Papers was a leak of
terabytes of documents from a legal office who sets up these corporations and
accounts.

Ironically the USA is a top tax haven due to anonymous shell corporations you
can create in several states. Lots being stashed here due to anomymity and
economic safety.

~~~
tvanantwerp
The US is a pretty poor corporate tax haven. Our corporate rates are higher
than pretty much everybody in the EU (including soon-to-be-out-of-the-EU
Britain). It's one of the major contributing factors to corporate inversions
(the moving of corporate headquarters out of the US) and companies like Apple
not bringing overseas profits back to the US.

------
noahmbarr
This reminds me of Zooloander smashing the iMac on the ground trying to find
file/folders

------
ojosilva
Actually, I find the bouncing around of fees and payments behind these
internet companies very complex, and maybe even justified to some extent. The
value-add that generates the taxable income is almost entirely elsewhere.

Let's say Google Spain got €100M in revenue and had €20M local expenses
(mostly sales, local support and localization). Now, say they owe €30M to US
HQ for the service, servers, R&D, IP, support, etc... among other expenses.
(For simplicity, let's suppose everything is hosted and originates in
California.)

That leaves Spain with €50M in profit, ready to be taxed by Spanish tax
authorities. This sounds quite out of proportion. The great value-added is not
in Spain, it's in the US.

Google HQ could easily establish Google Spain owes €80M in service costs, thus
local profit is nil. To me that's fair: corporate has the right to charge
whatever they see fit for their services and collect profits accordingly.

They way I see it, paying fees to the Bermudas is a US, not Spain, tax evasion
problem.

~~~
gshulegaard
Going to be honest, a little confused where the Bermudas or the US comes into
this...

Apparently this is regarding Google reporting the bulk of their sales out of
Ireland and therefore not paying taxes in Europe? This is based on _maybe_ a
loophole where Google makes sure to have Ireland staff conclude all sales
contracts...

------
nickbauman
This all points back to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which
reveals the intention of transnational corporations to try to limit
sovereignty. It didn't pass but it's terrific object lesson (especially in the
aftermath of Brexit).

The irony is that the _economic incompatibility thesis_ claims liberalization
of capital tends to undermine free trade, because capital flows make very
volatile markets, ultimately making it much harder for trade to take place. So
what happens is the reaction to freeing up capital is increased protectionism
which is what's generally happened since the '70s.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Agreement_on_Inve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Agreement_on_Investment)

------
em3rgent0rdr
Could this be why Google calendar is down?

Is Google going Galt? :)

~~~
02102192121
What do you mean by that? Is Google going to pay all the "content" producing
Galts that it profits off (and has never paid)?

------
chvid
I wonder what they expect to find? Or whether it is just a display of force.

~~~
dspillett
_> I wonder what they expect to find?_

Paperwork that contradicts statements the company has made, which would be
shredded long before an inspector's arrival should a more formal appointment
be arranged.

 _> Or whether it is just a display of force._

This is usually a factor in such raids too, but it only works if there is a
chance something might be found so they wouldn't do it _purely_ as a show of
force.

~~~
comboy
So, I'm not an expert in tax evasion, but if you give false statements to the
tax office, why would you keep statements that can bring you down on paper in
your office?

~~~
dspillett
Business as usual.

The false statements are saying that "business as usual" is something else.

If BaU _isn 't_ something else then the statement isn't false and there is
nothing to find (the paperwork will match the statements made).

------
ComodoHacker
IMO Google is so rich and so profitable that it could afford to pay all taxes
due in all countries fairly, without any "optimization", while staying
profitable and not undermining any R&D program or long-term project.

~~~
deelowe
Google's infrastructure is almost all custom. There's a lot of people who
would be out of a job if there was suddenly a >30% premium added to Google's
infrastructure when compared to OEMs. If you want the laws to change, change
the laws. The issue is the government, not the companies that are simply
playing by the rules.

~~~
jernfrost
"Simply playing by the rules". No they aren't. They are paying a small fortune
to figure out how to avoid paying taxes by following the letter of the law.
However they break the spirit of the law, and hence are not playing by the
rules.

This is not different from using drugs to win sports which hasn't yet been
banned because it is too new. Strictly speaking it is legal, but it is both
immoral and unethical.

The problem with depending on every possible behavior being described in the
law and closing every loophole is that that would create a very draconian
legal system nobody wants.

It is the same as with contracts between two parties. It is easy to screw each
other over if one nitpicks about everything and don't follow the spirit of the
contract. However the problem with such behavior is that it dramatically
increases transaction costs, because one can not trust each other and have to
make extremely complicated legal contracts.

I've noticed when dealing with American how the lack of any trust, makes any
kind of business deal very expensive. Contracts are completely over the top.

I don't think this is how one wants society to develop. Parties in an economy
have to be able to play fair with each other most of the time without
resorting to ever more insane details and regulations.

~~~
deelowe
I run a rental business and purposely purchase products that I need for
personal use such that it can be deducted as a rental expense. As long as I
use it >50% for rental stuff it's tax deductible.

Should I feel bad?

More specifically, does this violate the "spirit of the law?"

Even more specifically, every other rental owner does the same thing, so even
if I change my behavior, I'm at a disadvantage with my competitors.

Again, your issues are with the government, not the companies that are
following the law.

------
danielonco
Don't be evil

------
xchip
Pay Google pay! As everyone else!!

------
KKKKkkkk1
Spain shaking down Google, while the US shakes down VW. A trade war by any
other name...

~~~
CydeWeys
I don't see how you can possibly make this comparison. What VW did is so much
worse than legal but creative tax strategies. VW deserves to pay for all of
the harm it did to the environment and our lungs.

~~~
kuschku
Yes, just like GM, BMW, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Ford, Fiat do.

All of which bought and used the _exact same_ defeat device.

So why is only VW being punished, and why almost 1.5 years after the EPA
learnt about it?

~~~
CydeWeys
Do you have a source? Those are extraordinary claims. I'm not aware of any
other cheating anywhere close to the magnitude of what VW did. Also, what
"defeat device" are you talking about? VW's cheat was in software; it wasn't
some specific device.

And are you seriously surprised that it can take 1.5 years for a massive
multi-billion dollar lawsuit to wind its way through federal courts? If you
think 1.5 years is long, look at the Exxon-Valdez settlement, parts of which
are still unpaid 28 years later!

~~~
kuschku
The "defeat device" was a specific piece of software that Bosch provided with
the chips they sold.

Also, it was 1.5 years from discovery to investigations being started.

And regarding the claims: They’re not extraordinary. 4 companies have been in
the original report that incriminated VW, others incriminated themselves [1],
etc.

Germany is deciding to ban GM cars in Germany because they used the same
defeat "device" VW used but refuse to fix things, etc.

[http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-
ch...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/news/companies/mitsubishi-cheating-
fuel-tests-25-years/index.html)

[http://www.autobild.de/artikel/dieselabgas-
manipulationsvorw...](http://www.autobild.de/artikel/dieselabgas-
manipulationsvorwuerfe-gegen-opel-7063673.html)

It’s everywhere on the news here that all manufacturers did it. I’m surprised
you haven’t heard of it yet.

~~~
CydeWeys
The wheels of justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine. VW is the largest and
first target to be taken down, but hardly the last. I don't think your
expectations of all of this getting resolved very quickly are realistic.
Mitsubishi is currently being investigated by US regulators as of this past
April, and will probably be charged on a similar timeline as VW. Keep an eye
out for it. [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mitsubishimotors-
regulatio...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mitsubishimotors-regulations-
usa-idUSKCN0XJ042)

As for the Germans taking on Chrysler, good. If Chrysler did it then they
should pay, same as VW has and Mitsubishi is going to.
[http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/23/germany-fiat-chrysler-
ban...](http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/23/germany-fiat-chrysler-ban-diesel-
emissions/) No one deserves to develop lung disease because some stupid
manufacturers decided to cheat on tests rather than passing them. I still
don't see how this is a trade war, when it clearly looks to me like an
environmental enforcement issue.

------
iagooar
Ironic, how a corrupt government tries to pursue corruption.

------
dagi3d
Even Google Campus :/

------
drzaiusapelord
>Not sure why you're being downvoted.

HN is pretty intolerant of anything that isn't the far left, which is a bit
ironic for what's supposed to be an entrepreneurial forum. This change seemed
to happen a year or two ago. I suspect HN has been fully "redditized" now with
college identity politics being the prominent narrative. The drive-by
downvotes are just a symptom of that.

~~~
JoshTriplett
(Off-topic meta-conversation.)

HN tends to downvote _any_ political comments, especially comments that turn
the discussion _more_ political, even in a story that already tangentially
touches on politics. The HN guidelines more-or-less document the former; the
latter seems like a natural consequence. In general, politics is almost always
off-topic here; there are many other places to discuss politics.

(Personally, I tend to agree with
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/)
.)

Downvotes are a symptom of that: people downvote politics they disagree with
and upvote politics they agree with. Politics, more so than many other topics,
tends to bring out "downvote = disagree", not just "downvote = not a
contribution". That's _in addition_ to the people (myself often included) who
downvote any comment that turns the discussion more political, because such
comments typically reduce the quality and novelty of the discussion.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>HN tends to downvote any political comments

This is, by far, the most political site I go to. The top comments are often
politicized and the top stories are typical social media "outrage" stories.

I think you're painting a picture of HN that really doesn't exist, but did
probably long ago. HN now suffers from the 'eternal September' many popular
forums do. Techy forum participants are often high school and college students
with far left anti-US views common in youth. Its no surprise that these
viewpoints are the dominant narrative here.

I imagine there are people who downvote all politics, but they are clearly a
minority here. The downvote button is just a agree/disagree button in practice
and shows an obvious political bias.

~~~
uola
Your the one creating the "eternal september" discussion in this thread. You
take a story about international trade and make into a left-right issue,
promoting your pet opnion that Europe have moved to far to the left. Then you
turn the whole thread into meta by complaining how HN is turning into reddit
(something so common it even is warned against in the guidelines).

Not only are your comments utterly predictable, and therefor uninteresting,
they are factually incorrect. It's often the right wing that want to protect
the local market. The US just forced China to limit subsidies on exports [0].
The UKs exit of the EU is largely a result of the left wing not being able to
convince their votes, in favor of right wing conservatives.

That Europe has turned to the left as a result of the financial crisis is also
not substantiated [1][2]. The few countries that have in recent years are have
all been forced to enact (right wing) economic reforms. Including Greece,
France and Portugal. Which is why people are protesting, not because they have
suddenly become more leftist.

If you think HN has become leftist it's very likely that you are simply older
than most people on HN. Young people today, whether they consider themselves
left or right, are forced to care about things like housing, healthcare,
employment and other issues that were previously considered left wing because
society is changing.

[0]
[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f4d1240-024a-11e6-99cb-83242733f7...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f4d1240-024a-11e6-99cb-83242733f755.html)
[1]
[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q8uKkXy8X4I/TjH0passYGI/AAAAAAAAGV...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q8uKkXy8X4I/TjH0passYGI/AAAAAAAAGVE/_lo4iVOcQBA/s1600/leftright2.jpg)
[2]
[http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/1D03/production...](http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/1D03/production/_89772470_eu_far_right_23052016_624map.png)

