41–50 of 292 posts
http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2007/boyle.pdf
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/austan.goolsbee/research/mun...
http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pubeco/v93y2009i1-2p142-159.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's up to England's citizens to change the efficiency of England's government. Google is doing great things. By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. It doesn't matter whether it would do better with the money. I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make. My job is to work to make sure that the US…
> By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. See, I'd disagree with you and say the opposite. I think England taking money from Google would mean less infrastructure and research out there in the world, meaning common citizens would be forced to pay more for services instead of Google's free services, or make do with less. > I think I could do better with my tax money…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That seems absurd by free enterprise standards and I am genuinely curious to know why refusing to do this would be called "evil." When taxes come up, it tends not to be a well-thought, cohesive, pros-and-cons thing. It tends to be an emotional/identity thing. Some people think and almost always argue it'd be a good thing if companies gave more money over to governments. Me, I think it's very good for the world on e…
Well, it's up to England's citizens to change the efficiency of England's government. Google is doing great things. By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. It doesn't matter whether it would do better with the money. I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make. My job is to work to make sure that the US…
If the government wants Google to pay taxes, they should enact laws that establish that. It's as simple as that.
> I think I could do better with my tax money than the US government. But then, that's not my choice to make.
At least, it's not your choice to make yourself. When you agree to live in a certain place, you generally have to play by the rules.
Google is "flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they're perpetrating evil under our noses," says Abraham J. Briloff, a professor emeritus of accounting at Baruch College who has examined Google's tax disclosures. Maybe it is the lawyer in me, but why wouldn't any international business do whatever it could legally do to minimize its taxes? I understand that governments might want to consider these as loopholes…
It's not just Google who is evil. They're just getting called out on it, because they've pledged not to be evil. It's rather expected of other corporations because we expect them to operate with out morals in search of maximum profit. But any corporation that takes advantages of tax loop holes, legal or not, is doing evil. By doing that they are taking money out of the pockets of every day citizens in every country w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By but dodging its taxes, it is forcing ordinary citizens to pay more. Or make do with less. See, I'd disagree with you and say the opposite. I think England taking money from Google would mean less infrastructure and research out there in the world, meaning common citizens would be forced to pay more for services instead of Google's free services, or make do with less. > I think I could do better with my tax money…
What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services?
To make $250 million honestly, you'd have to produce value far in excess of $250 million. And yes, taxing people for producing value with their own labor is wrong to me. This is not an argument that all taxation is bad. You need taxes to run society. But taxing earned income seems wrong to me - the government doesn't own you, nor does it own your labor. I believe that. It's your life, you own it, and you own the product of your hands and mind. You should pay for the property you use, which effectively means you're paying for wherever you receive services. Wealthier people tend to use more property, meaning they pay more naturally. This seems sensible to me. Claiming ownership over a man's labor does not seem sensible to me.
They follow the letter of the law. If the law is bad, change the law, don't bash Google for managing it's tax liability cost effectively and accuse them of being evil.
http://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/corporate/responsibility_en...
"Look at how great we are" type giving: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-brin-wojcicki-fo...
We hear corporate leaders (Gates, Brin, et al) lecture on social responsibility, yet they undercut the very structure of society by skirting tax laws.
How will we build universities, roads, public infrastructure without tax revenue?
Now the hacker in me says, knowing how corporations behave, how do we fix this? Do we have tax laws that encourage corps to pass along more earnings to share holders? Implement 0% corporate tax rate and then capture tax revenue out of individual capital gains and taxes on dividends?
It's one thing to rage about this, it's another to come up with a solution.
"The setup lowers Google's overseas tax bill, but it also affects U.S. tax revenues as the government struggles to close a projected $1.4 trillion budget gap." It's a ridiculous notion that any single corporation's tax contribution will put even the slightest dent in the budget deficit. Government spending is like gas in a vacuum, it will expand to fill whatever space you give it.
In Ireland, these kinds of tax breaks are one of the foundations of our economy. They aren't viewed as a way to give a hand out to the big companies, but as a way to create jobs. This article mentions that 2,000 people are employed in Google Dublin. Given Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, IBM and Sun also operate, there's easily 10,000+ people employed thanks to our low tax rate. There are only 1,000,000 people employed in I…
The reality is however, that taxes will have to be raised and the corporations will leave for yet another island paradise, and that will result in social catastrophe either way.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_d...
Google is "flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they're perpetrating evil under our noses," says Abraham J. Briloff, a professor emeritus of accounting at Baruch College who has examined Google's tax disclosures. Maybe it is the lawyer in me, but why wouldn't any international business do whatever it could legally do to minimize its taxes? I understand that governments might want to consider these as loopholes…
Ethics aside, Google shouldn't seek to deprive nations of tax revenue because they benefit in no small part from that money. They hire employees educated with government money, buy research projects funded with government money, build data centers that depend upon public infrastructure, etc. Frankly, without government money, Google would not exist. By gaming the tax systems, they're not only flipping the bird to the…
On the other hand, for every $100 google pays in taxes, $23.2 will be given to unproductive old people and $14.8 will be given to unproductive non-old people.
It's a fallacy to focus solely on the desirable components of government spending. The lions share of taxes are simply transfers from productive people to unproductive people. If Google wants to avoid this, I see nothing wrong with that.