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

311–320 of 349 posts

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#311

Post by OJFord »

oh_sigh wrote: post #274
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FWIW, that's not against the rules, you can have custom 'contracts' like that; iirc it's even so allowed that there's a stipulation for when it may happen (the beginning of the instigator's turn, I think) in the rules.

I think (I think) the answer is that it's not really about morality or ethics, but about finding an equilibrium between desired taxation and profit optimisation. The latter finds ways to reduce tax burden, and if that results in an unacceptably low burden the former (should) responds with rule changes.

But that points to it being more political than ethical, that's perhaps quite a free-market capitalist take on it.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#312

Post by aylmao »

totalZero wrote: post #44
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.

If China has indeed "blown it," there's no imperative reason that India must be the subsequent option. Several other markets offer cheap labor and friendly host government policies toward foreign manufacturers.

India can offer both the cheap labour and the large market.

In the coming decades as the rest of India gets connected to the internet, it will become the biggest market since at its current population growth it'll surpass China's population size.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#313

Post by legolas2412 »

kranner wrote: post #145
tlear wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See Russia as to how to deal with people like that. It is nothing that a raid or accident can’t fix. He is also not murdering Indian soldiers on the border which is a bonus. Same men that ordered that escalation are investing PRC money. If they are not same they share the same boss.

> Same men that ordered that escalation are investing PRC money. If they are not same they share the same boss. This is speculation, unless you have sources in which case please share them. The most detailed and seemingly authentic source [1] I have seen about the Galwan brawl (that resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers and an undisclosed number of Chinese soldiers) suggests the escalation was not planned but…

Are you really interested in debating the topic, or just perpetual muddying the waters?

The question is if Chinese ownership of Indian industries will be bad, and the answer is an obvious yes.

As for your claim in this case, it wasn't just a freshly deployed Chinese trooper, but the whole platoon, who had built structures and arranged weapons in violation of prior agreement.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#314

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

screye wrote: post #263
9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go further and say there's nobody that can compete with China at this stage. Sure, some US companies are doing tactical investments here and there, meanwhile the Chinese government is plowing billions into basic infra like railways, ports and roads across swathes of Asia and Africa, and then its companies follow.

> plowing billions into basic infra like railways, ports and roads across swathes of Asia and Africa, and then its companies follow. That hasn't worked out too well for them. The reason no other country wanted to fund these projects, is because they have a history of defaulting on those loans. Additionally, these projects are a wound that doesn't stop bleeding. China has to continue pouring money in them for maintena…

They're playing a long game, and yes, that may well be their goal.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#316

Post by OJFord »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #291
OJFord wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stee…

The fact that for you "should online companies pay taxes?" is a subject worthy of debate indicates such a vast gulf between our positions that there's really nothing to discuss, I think. Certainly the idea that Google is not "in" any particular country seems pretty strange to me, but if that is indeed your position then clearly it should pay tax in all of those countries, not none.

Not 'should they pay taxes' (of course, those which are owed, not doing so is evasion and illegal) but 'how should they be taxed'.

Tax laws apply to them, but pretty much (IANA tax professional btw) aren't setup for online companies and haven't changed (in rough form) since they existed.

Profit based taxation doesn't work if you can just continually reinvest revenue and not declare a profit. (Not unique to online cos of course, but perhaps more prevalent? Maybe more linked to high R&D cos in general.)

Defining where a sale was conducted is messy if your headquarters, accounting dept., tech dept., servers, TLD, customer, self-identity, ... can all be in different jurisdictions.

Etc. ad nauseam. That's what's up for debate.

I think we'd be happy with the same outcome, I just don't think it's worth appealing to companies to ignore the bottom line and pay tax to a level that's higher than required (and so not defined) but that 'we' (you'll never please everyone, so pluck a number out of the air) will be happy with.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#317

Post by cvlasdkv »

vinay427 wrote: post #298
smenyp wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the burden of proof on the poster arguing that India is more democratic rather than the side arguing that US is more democratic? India is the world's largest democracy, has a multi-party system, has had prime ministers from different religions, and both men and women top leaders. The US on the other hand has only had Christian leaders (4 have technically not specified), and all men. It's also a 2-party system.…

> Why is the burden of proof on the poster arguing that India is more democratic rather than the side arguing that US is more democratic? Because they made the claim, and I found this claim more unconventional and potentially more interesting to draw out than the claims in the comment they replied to. There was no conscious hidden agenda here. If someone (on whatever side of this discussion) makes a novel claim, they…

It is only a "novel" claim in America, where America must be the best of everything.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#318

Post by kranner »

shripadk wrote: post #294
kranner wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Indian government is not afraid of contravening Indian laws, it can grab Chinese shares anyway. If it wants to maintain the appearance of being lawful and fair, there is already an Enemy Property Act, 1968 to more or less support grabbing Chinese investments (perhaps with an amendment or two). Under what pretence would they grab Ambani's property? There is Eminent Domain in India, but only AFAIK for land owner…

> there is already an Enemy Property Act, 1968 to more or less support grabbing Chinese investments No. The Enemy Property Act, 1968 is specifically made for Pakistani Nationals after the 1965 Indo-Pak War. It is not generic. To declare China as an Enemy a proper War should take place between India and China. Is China ready for such a misadventure?

The Wikipedia article is incomplete on the topic. The act applies to Chinese owned properties as well.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#319

Post by kranner »

legolas2412 wrote: post #308
kranner wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point here is not the historical name of the subcontinent or any shared cultural history (which all neighbouring states have). It is the lack of a common Indian government, comparable to the present time, that made the mistake of allowing too much investment by the EIC as you seemed to suggest. What the British Empire called India included parts of Afghanistan and Myanmar; modern India certainly has no claim over…

You're distracting from the point. It doesn't matter how strong the central government is or how divided the population is. What we are discussing is foreign ownership and foreign power over India, and you just said that allowing EIC too much of these was a mistake

I have not said any such thing. I said GP had argued it. It is absurd because there was no such “we” at the time.

Re: Google to Invest $10B in India

#320

Post by tlear »

Barrin92 wrote: post #155
tlear wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk is talk, but question is why murder Indian soldiers? Why bother destroying the golden goose Honkong? Add to that silly power games to try and intimidate Australia(and failing) PRC strategy is very far from smart here. Perhaps it is supreme arrogance? Arrogance like that historically have led to a lot of people getting killed.

Hong Kong isn't a golden goose any more. Hong Kong went from representing about a fifth of the Chinese economy to about 2% today. The Shanghai stock exchange today is larger than the one in Hong Kong, and the perception in China has shifted from seeing it as an important economic region to a political nuissance as the role of foreign capital diminishes. It's not seen as a dynamic region any more and the tech talent g…

HK was a bridge where you could setup things that operated under normal law more or less. That bridge is gone and any confidence in long term rule of law has evaporated. That was its main contribution, it is not like some insurgents setup shop in HK it was basically a non-issue till PRC made it into one.

India vs PRC balance is not as one sided as one might think. India has nukes just like China. On the ground PRC has advantage and probably in the air as well. But guess where all the Chinese trade routes pass by? In hot war the decisive theater would be Indian Ocean and balance of power there is very far from foregone conclusion, it would take just some US intel “leaking” for Indian Navy to shut down all PRC trade.

US is mostly non-issue, unless PRC does something idiotic like invade Senkakus or Taiwan. US will do nothing directly.

Biggest move US has done was last year when they helped push a deal to build indigenous modern submarines in Taiwan with Mitsubishi Heavy industries help. Prototype presented suspiciously looks like Soryu, which is any PRC naval planner worst nightmare. And very suspicious number of MHI “retired” engineers have moved to Taiwan. Next step after is couple of the under construction Soryu being sold. That would be like a scalpel next to PRC trade throat. Taiwan been trying to get that capability for decades, US could not help as it does not build electric subs and PRC could pressure others not to sell, well they pissed Japan enough this time(those games around Senkakus and with rare earths maybe was a bad idea eh?)

Post reply on HN