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

Google to Invest $10B in India

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 349 posts

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#271

Post by dang »

intended wrote: post #189
bamboozled wrote: post #4

Getting the feeling China has blown it and successful companies looking to expand into Asia are now looking at India instead. I also saw that Foxconn is looking to build Apple products in India now too.

This is bunk. There are 2 forces At play that matter to your position 1) big tech firms investing in a large local player for legal, political connections and arms length sheilding from the necessary local corruption 2) normal manufacturers moving to Vietnam - which has accelerated since the trade war due to COVID. The second is best described by a New Zealand owner who was looking for factories to build stuff in, as…

Please don't break the site guidelines with "This is bunk" and other such swipes:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#272

Post by OJFord »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #261
OJFord wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not humanising corporations, I hate it when they make matey communications and kick myself if I catch myself referring to a (singular) company as 'they'. But the terms avoidance and evasion are the same for corporate taxation as they are for personal tax. The desire to not pay more than necessary is also the same, and that seems entirely rational. If you want a company to pay more tax (and it's not presently brea…

There is a pretty clear difference, to me, between saying "this practice is obviously wrong, but technically legal--and we should work to change that," and lauding the company's actions as "good accounting," scolding people for confusing the act of successfully evading paying taxes with "tax evasion" as though this particular bit of legal jargon were shedding light on anything for non-accountants, and carrying water…

I don't think there's much that's 'obviously' right or wrong in economic policies or tax law, and certainly companies that would fare worse under your proposed changes are the wrong target for urges of change.

Or any legislation really, that's the point of case law, a particular circumstance wasn't anticipated, so there's some interpretation and umming and ahing, and thenceforth that example's able to be used to steer the next.

Online service companies (for example) operating over multiple physical territories, not really 'in' any more than the other, weren't anticipated, the broad strokes of the way they're taxed predates them. It makes sense to advocate for some fundamental change that reimagines how to effectively tax them (I wouldn't call it 'obviously' necessary, but it's a sensible argument worthy of debate) - but it's a waste of breath to expect such companies to volunteer extra tax not required of them.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#273

Post by koheripbal »

MangoCoffee wrote: post #177
btian wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China will never develop a consumption based economy with its aging population Why is that the case? I assume older people consume more than younger ones, esp healthcare

30-40 is the high of consumption. marriage/kids mean house, car...etc. you start to pull back after 60 and try to save your money to last you into old age. health care along is not going to drive the consumption based economy like when you are in your 30. you can see that in baby boomers. Gen X never carry United States like baby boomers did and Gen Y will carry America for the next few decades.

Can confirm - 3 kids and I've never bought so much shit in my life. I should replace my front door with a conveyor belt for all the Amazon boxes...

I laughed at that TED talk where the guy shows how shaking your hands can save a paper towel. We have used more paper towels in the last 1 month than I ever used in my entire 20 years of single adulthood combined.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#274

Post by oh_sigh »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #137
OJFord wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No tax evasion is ever permitted, by definition. (Tax owed and not paid.) Finding ways to reduce tax liability (rational) is called tax avoidance . (Tax not owed, and obviously not paid.)

The idea that corporations can avoid paying taxes anywhere and this is just "good accounting" is stupid on the face of it, regardless of the terminology used.

Isn't the stupid thing that the tax system is set up such that these things are possible(to pay less tax than you 'should')? As David Mitchell says[0], making how much tax you pay a sliding scale based on your morality or ethics(while still remaining on the right side of the law) is just a tax on morality and ethics - the people with the least of those things will end up richer than the people with more of it, which is 'fucking bonkers'

I got into a big argument over a Monopoly game once - three of us were playing, Player 1 was in the clear lead, I was in second place but at a large disadvantage, and Player 3 had the least assets but was not having fun and wanted to leave the game. The rules of monopoly say that a player quitting gets all their properties sent to the bank, which then auctions them off. If that happened, Player 1 would have easily beat me in a heads up manner. So I convinced Player 3 to not quit just yet, and to sell me all of his properties for $1. Player 1 was furious, saying it was against the rules, but there is no rule against selling your properties for next to nothing and then quitting immediately. Was I in the wrong for convincing Player 3 to sell me his properties before quitting?

BTW, I ended up winning the game.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#275

Post by cryptica »

Maybe I should move to India. I heard so many success stories from there. I think Australia, Europe and US are on the decline. In Australia and Europe, raising in $20K+ of investment is basically impossible no matter how good you are or how much traction your product has... and you have to compete with well funded startups from other countries.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#276

Post by m0zg »

bluGill wrote: post #109
m0zg wrote: post #46

Is there even a way for Google to invest in a high-corruption country like India without paying bribes (which would break US anti-bribery laws)? I'm pretty sure such an investment would be impossible in e.g. Russia, where many a hand needs to be greased before anything can happen.

Yes. In fact I suspect they haven't paid bribes because the US will arrest their CEO if they pay bribes. There are complex reasons exceptions, but in general us companies don't pay bribes unless someone's life is directly threatened. The same goes for UK companies, and I have no doubt all the other major countries in Europe have similar laws. One of my companies competors get caught bribing. After investigation it wa…

They all pay bribes one way or another though. It's impossible to do business in the Third World otherwise. It's probably some sort of a lobbyist or a "subsidiary" or something along those lines. I know it's hard for an American to believe, but you just don't get to do business at all if you don't pay - large part of why I live and do business in the United States where one doesn't have to do it.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#277

Post by bluGill »

m0zg wrote: post #276
bluGill wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. In fact I suspect they haven't paid bribes because the US will arrest their CEO if they pay bribes. There are complex reasons exceptions, but in general us companies don't pay bribes unless someone's life is directly threatened. The same goes for UK companies, and I have no doubt all the other major countries in Europe have similar laws. One of my companies competors get caught bribing. After investigation it wa…

They all pay bribes one way or another though. It's impossible to do business in the Third World otherwise. It's probably some sort of a lobbyist or a "subsidiary" or something along those lines. I know it's hard for an American to believe, but you just don't get to do business at all if you don't pay - large part of why I live and do business in the United States where one doesn't have to do it.

Some countries. India is in question here. India has problems but they are trying to clean up and that means that you both have a shot at not paying bribes and a real risk if you do.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#278

Post by intended »

dang wrote: post #271
intended wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bunk. There are 2 forces At play that matter to your position 1) big tech firms investing in a large local player for legal, political connections and arms length sheilding from the necessary local corruption 2) normal manufacturers moving to Vietnam - which has accelerated since the trade war due to COVID. The second is best described by a New Zealand owner who was looking for factories to build stuff in, as…

Please don't break the site guidelines with "This is bunk" and other such swipes: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Noted. My bad.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#279

Post by vinay427 »

bhaskara2 wrote: post #197
onetimemanytime wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is probably China of xx years ago, with a lot more protections. I understand that India is no perfect democracy and corruption exists, but it still wants to act as a democracy.

India is more democratic than even USA. Case in point Arvind Kejriwal and multiple such leaders. Anyone can form a party and contest the elections and actually have a fighting chance to govern India, can the same be said about the USA?

Maybe there is a case to be made here, and maybe you can make a convincing one given more time. However, as it stands there's a world of difference between the rise to (local) power of someone like Kejriwal and the claim that India is more democratic than the US. That is a rather specific feature that, even if true, is neither sufficient nor required to be democratic.
Post reply on HN