Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

businessweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 292 posts

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#171

Post by captain_obv »

tkahn6 wrote: post #153
notahacker wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NHS employs a lot more people than Google and carries out research and development into saving people's lives. Sure, what Google does is great, but I'm really not convinced that thinking up ever more creative outlets to display targeted advertising is necessarily a better outcome for society than spending the money on the UK public sector, which has many worthwhile projects of its own. I'm going to go out on a li…

but it's equally a stretch to suggest that we're better off because Google pays less tax In absolutely no way is it a stretch to say that and I'm terribly surprised you have any upvotes. Are you aware of how many services Google provides for free that make my life (and probably yours) better? Google Search Google Maps Android Google Navigation (on Android) Google Patent Search Google Book Search (Working with librari…

"If you are not paying for it, you are the product".

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#172

Post by babblefrog »

roc wrote: post #32
grellas wrote: post #13

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…

Why is it evil for companies to take advantage of tax breaks, but the lawmakers who created the tax breaks get a pass. Shouldn't it be the lawmakers who are responsible?

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#173

Post by dtf »

pg wrote: post #17
dtf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Google have a public image of behaving ethically. Everyone expects banks and evil multinationals to do this kind of thing. Is it ethical to avoid paying tax as an individual? Many would say no. But when a company does it, they lay their blame on the shareholders and the market. So the more outrage about this subject, the better. Our governments can either raise taxes or lower taxes. But they shouldn't let ind…

Is it ethical to avoid paying tax as an individual? Many would say no. Do you mean avoid (by legal means) or evade (by illegal means)? Any government that uses tax incentives to affect citizens' behavior is saying it's ok to avoid taxes. If they promise your taxes will be lower if you do x rather than y, they're counting on your desire to avoid taxes to motivate you to do x.

I mean avoid: employing sophisticated financial and legal engineering to reduce your rate of tax by an order of magnitude.

We all try to avoid paying too much tax, but that's not tax avoidance. Sending your profits to the Bahamas via Holland and Ireland is tax avoidance. I'd be happy to tell everybody and anybody about how I legally reduce my tax bill. Google's PR people would probably rather keep their methods on the down-low, out of the public eye, in spite of their utter legality. So why is that?

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#174

Post by rick888 »

jbooth wrote: post #54
dtf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Google have a public image of behaving ethically. Everyone expects banks and evil multinationals to do this kind of thing. Is it ethical to avoid paying tax as an individual? Many would say no. But when a company does it, they lay their blame on the shareholders and the market. So the more outrage about this subject, the better. Our governments can either raise taxes or lower taxes. But they shouldn't let ind…

>Because Google have a public image of behaving ethically. Everyone expects banks and evil multinationals to do this kind of thing. I hate that crap. It's possibly the worst thing about our media. Mountain-top removal by coal mining company devastates 100 SQ mile ecosystem in West Virginia? Doesn't even make the paper. Al Gore's electricity bill is high? PAGE ONE BABY. Al Gore's electricity bill is approximately 1 /…

"Al Gore's electricity bill is high? PAGE ONE BABY. Al Gore's electricity bill is approximately 1 / 100,000,000 or so of the problem. But it makes us feel good to give do-gooders their comeuppance. Serves them right, for trying to improve things and making us feel bad that we don't do more ourselves."

Al Gore has rallied to get the government to start forcing corporations to use carbon credits and buy them from companies that he is invested in. It's not that he is a "do-gooder", it's that he is an unethical hypocrite. These kinds of people need to be pointed out.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#175

Post by WalterBright »

Travis wrote: post #110
adbge wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money to develop the infrastructure behind those services (the internet, roads, GPS, etc). I'd argue that the infrastructure would have been built regardless.

Perhaps the infrastructure would have been built, but I think you'd be surprised at the amount of basic fundamental research the government does that enables the infrastructure. Most corporations don't do what the US Feds call "R06" research, meaning there is no current application for the results. Pure research, others might call it. My current field, public health, is an example. The US Gov't spends billions into r…

Anybody who dissected a smoker knew it was bad for you (ever seen a smoker's lung? I have. Horrific). Even in the 20's cigarettes were called "coffin nails", and doctors routinely advised their patients to quit smoking.

Epidemiological studies have been carried out since the early 1800's.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#176

Post by adbge »

Travis wrote: post #110
adbge wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money to develop the infrastructure behind those services (the internet, roads, GPS, etc). I'd argue that the infrastructure would have been built regardless.

Perhaps the infrastructure would have been built, but I think you'd be surprised at the amount of basic fundamental research the government does that enables the infrastructure. Most corporations don't do what the US Feds call "R06" research, meaning there is no current application for the results. Pure research, others might call it. My current field, public health, is an example. The US Gov't spends billions into r…

> There are lots of non-infrastructure advantages that exist only because the government has tax money.

I'd posit that, for many of these advantages, government is not a necessary cause. That is to say, these non-infrastructure advantages can exist independent of government.

> But without it, we wouldn't know that cigarettes are bad...

This is demonstrably false.

"In 1938 a study by a John Hopkins University scientist suggested a strongly negative correlation between smoking and lifespan."[1][2]

"In 1953 scientists at the Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York City demonstrated that cigarette tar painted on the skin of mice caused fatal cancers."[3]

The Sloan-Kettering Institute is by and large funded by the Rockefeller family.[4]

> "or that heart disease is correlated with red meat consumption."

The original research supporting this is, in fact, from a government institute. However, the study has been criticized using an improperly validated food frequency questionnaire[5], which has been shown to have low accuracy.[6][7] A later Harvard study found evidence that it's processed meat that causes heart disease, not red meat.[8]

> The US Gov't spends billions into research that doesn't lead to tangible products or services.

I'm constantly amazed at how many products came out of the space race. Enriched baby food, scratch resistant glasses, advances in water purification, even more aerodynamic golf balls! It's truly marvelous.

[1]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/87/2253/216?ijkey=ecbc...

[2] John Hopkins is a private university, but they receive a not insignificant amount of funding from the government in the form of tax breaks, grants, etc. I think it's fair to say that this study, however, originated in the private sector.

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_...

[4]http://www.smokershistory.com/MSKCC.htm

[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-19

[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-20

[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#cite_note-21

[8]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870431490457525...

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#177

Post by jbooth »

rick888 wrote: post #174
jbooth wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because Google have a public image of behaving ethically. Everyone expects banks and evil multinationals to do this kind of thing. I hate that crap. It's possibly the worst thing about our media. Mountain-top removal by coal mining company devastates 100 SQ mile ecosystem in West Virginia? Doesn't even make the paper. Al Gore's electricity bill is high? PAGE ONE BABY. Al Gore's electricity bill is approximately 1 /…

"Al Gore's electricity bill is high? PAGE ONE BABY. Al Gore's electricity bill is approximately 1 / 100,000,000 or so of the problem. But it makes us feel good to give do-gooders their comeuppance. Serves them right, for trying to improve things and making us feel bad that we don't do more ourselves." Al Gore has rallied to get the government to start forcing corporations to use carbon credits and buy them from compa…

He's fat, too!

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#178

Post by joxenford »

tkahn6 wrote: post #153
notahacker wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NHS employs a lot more people than Google and carries out research and development into saving people's lives. Sure, what Google does is great, but I'm really not convinced that thinking up ever more creative outlets to display targeted advertising is necessarily a better outcome for society than spending the money on the UK public sector, which has many worthwhile projects of its own. I'm going to go out on a li…

but it's equally a stretch to suggest that we're better off because Google pays less tax In absolutely no way is it a stretch to say that and I'm terribly surprised you have any upvotes. Are you aware of how many services Google provides for free that make my life (and probably yours) better? Google Search Google Maps Android Google Navigation (on Android) Google Patent Search Google Book Search (Working with librari…

To say any of these things have made anyones life better is quite a stretch. Has gmail improved your quality of life? Really? Choose your words carefully. Indoor plumbing and electricity made life better. Gmail has not. Your email was fine before Gmail.

And Google should pay their F-ing taxes. I do.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#179

Post by aidenn0 »

lionhearted wrote: post #28
dtf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Google have a public image of behaving ethically. Everyone expects banks and evil multinationals to do this kind of thing. Is it ethical to avoid paying tax as an individual? Many would say no. But when a company does it, they lay their blame on the shareholders and the market. So the more outrage about this subject, the better. Our governments can either raise taxes or lower taxes. But they shouldn't let ind…

> Is it ethical to avoid paying tax as an individual? Many would say no. "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyo…

Ah, you beat me to that quote.

It is not evil to minimize your tax liability within the rules. If Google were spending millions lobbying to decrease their tax liability, then that might be evil. Minimizing your tax liability is perfectly reasonable. Not doing so would be doing a disservice to shareholders, and is arguable more evil.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#180

Post by pbiggar »

borism wrote: post #49
rmc wrote: post #22

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…

And that's the reason Ireland has something like 1000% external debt to GDP [1] - politicians and local businessmen alike got so drunk with their success of luring in corps that they assumed it will continue forever. 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.o…

Judging from the tax limitation described in the article, increasing the corporate tax rate for Google Ireland to 100% wouldn't make it leave.
Post reply on HN