On one extreme, Google keeps it's prices static and it's customers don't change their buy resulting in the tax coming only out of Google's profit.
On the other extreme, Google raises it's prices exactly proportional to the tax, it's customers buy the same amount of ads and raise their prices exactly proportional to the increase and you pay them for service or good $x. Your income stays the same but it buys less because everything is more expensive.
The real result is in the middle, google eats some of the loss from tax, raises it's prices and customers somewhat lower their ad spend and somewhat raise their own prices eating some of the loss from tax. Which extreme any individual believes is more accurate has more to do with political bias than truth.
Then, of course, Google has shareholders which are none other than the public (either by direct ownership of stocks or through funds of various sorts). Whatever taxing Google can not offset by raising prices, is passed on to the shareholders in the form of reduced EPS.
On one extreme, Google keeps it's prices static and it's customers don't change their buy resulting in the tax coming only out of Google's profit.
On the other extreme, Google raises it's prices exactly proportional to the tax, it's customers buy the same amount of ads and raise their prices exactly proportional to the increase and you pay them for service or good $x. Your income stays the same but it buys less because everything is more expensive.
The real result is in the middle, google eats some of the loss from tax, raises it's prices and customers somewhat lower their ad spend and somewhat raise their own prices eating some of the loss from tax. Which extreme any individual believes is more accurate has more to do with political bias than truth.