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

131–140 of 292 posts

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#131

Post by borism »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #102
borism wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, Ireland's structural problems are not limited to property bubble? Perhaps it's the symptom, not the cause?

Ok, you tell me. Why do you believe low corporate taxes are the cause of Ireland's problems? Before making your argument, keep in mind that 12.5% of something > 33% of nothing.

I have a very hard time understanding how you translate my line of thought:

low tax rate->more multinationals->higher debt for local business and government->higher tax rate->less multinationals->social catastrophe

into your line of thought:

low tax rate->more multinationals->property bubble->"current problems"

what are "current problems" you identify in Ireland anyway?

all I was saying is that low tax rate is not sustainable with level of public and private debts in Ireland. Do you agree or disagree?

of course property bubble is connected to presence of many multinationals in a way, but I wouldn't nor did I identify it with this primarily.

Property bubble was global as you might know. So why does Ireland have such large problems when compared to other countries?

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#132

Post by solutionyogi »

borism wrote: post #40
solutionyogi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a hard time digesting this claim, I looked up on Google and found this: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a... In 2008, GS's effective tax rate was 1%!

Why it's so hard to digest this? GS is so successful and so hated for certain reasons, and that's one of them.

I do expect a Public Corporation to minimize their tax liability. I would have not been surprised if they minimized their effective tax from 35% to 25%, or even 15%. But going from 35% to 1% is rather surprising. I guess their Corporate Tax team got some real nice bonus for 2008.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#133

Post by MalUK »

gaius wrote: post #122
MalUK wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is England mentioned in this comment? Google Ireland is based in the Republic of Ireland, which is not related to England.

Because Google uses Ireland to avoid paying tax on revenues earned in England.

That's not really an issue. Businesses in the EU are mostly taxed at their base, so it's up to them which country they choose. The problem is the use of the Netherlands to funnel the cash, which means the tax revenue is escaping the EU.

Effectively, they have set up shop in an EU country, they are enjoying the benefits like infrastructure, state educated population, health care, and are allegedly paying practically nothing for it.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#134

Post by rdtsc »

jdietrich wrote: post #97
lionhearted wrote: post #16

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…

It's a curious thought, but I actually think I'd prefer to be a subject of Google than Her Majesty's Government. Larry, Sergei, if you're reading - please make a bid for UK PLC. It's weighed down with debts and the current management are a shower of shite, but the headquarters are pretty swanky and I hear there are some great engineers on the payroll in Cambridge.

That is a very common idea among right-wing Americans -- they'd rather have companies take care of us than the government. The government is wasteful and full of beaurocrats. Let Walmart, P&G, and Monstanto clothe, wash and feed rather than the beaurocrats in Washington.

I guess the idea is that many educated and informed consumers will pick among the best companies and competition will drive the costs down.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#135

Post by dbingham »

jasonlotito wrote: post #43
dbingham wrote: post #30

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…

Your sandwich analogy is backwards. In your example, you would be the government, and it's Google's sandwich. 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 pl…

In the analogy it's not the government who's sandwich Google is taking -- its the average citizen. The government is just a proxy organization representing the citizens in a much more direct way than a company represents its stock holders.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#136

Post by dbingham »

adbge wrote: post #96
dbingham wrote: post #30

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…

> It's like saying I need your sandwich more than you do. I'm hungrier, I could make better use of it, therefore I should get your sandwich. Even if I could legally take your sandwich. It's still not okay. It's your sandwich! If I take it, you go hungry. Really, the same reasoning could be applied to the government with regards to taxation.

See comment below. In the analogy "I" am Google and "you" is the average citizen who has to pay more as a result of Google's tax avoidance. Not the government.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#137

Post by Retric »

lionhearted wrote: post #93
Retric wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: Fixed, sorry had a bad copy and paste. You sit at home and come up with a great new piece of software that’s worth 250 million and sell it IBM. Why should you pay more taxes than the bum sitting at home next door? After all you did not use land or resources protected by your countries military and police forces. You did not use public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams) or government backed institutions (bank…

Edit: You completed edited your comment since I replied... the new version is a lot more reasonable. Here's what I originally wrote, which doesn't 100% apply any more: Did you actually read my comment? I think you're reacting to something I didn't say - taxes are fine, and you'd wind up paying for services you use in property taxes. Land, resources, military, police, roads, bridges, dams, banks (really shouldn't be g…

Yea, sorry I messed up the comment in editing and had the "After all you" stuff twice.

Anyway, I wonder what your thoughts are on the central idea. Mainly our ability to generate value is directly related to the value the government provides us. The ability to walk the streets unmolested is hard to quantify but the economic value is directly related to our income. Also, murder investigations are independent of the amount of land we own. And things like food safety and public vaccinations are cheap and valuable so bundling all of that stuff up and simply taxing income seems more reasonable than trying to have individual taxes on every transaction with the government.

As to leaving I think that's an important option. It's what separates slaves of the state from people that can accept the deal or move on. A young talented American can has many options for relocation to another area, the fact that so few do suggests our system has many benefits even if they are not all obvious.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#138

Post by notahacker »

lionhearted wrote: post #45
dbingham wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if my income is $250 million? It still evil for the government to claim a percentage of that to provide services?

> 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…

The government provides services which are pretty fundamental to Google's success including enforcement of Google's various property rights (including IP) and providing a stable environment in which to do business. Surely the value of that service is broadly proportional to Google's income and well in excess of 2.4%

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#139

Post by rdouble »

RickHull wrote: post #127
tow21 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google's board and executives are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value. Shareholders can sue otherwise." Common fallacy. No they're not, and no they can't. See, eg http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744

Are you saying that a corporation does not have a fiduciary duty to its shareholders? That paper just expresses a limitation of conclusions that can be drawn from a single case, Dodge v Ford .

This is a counter to the commonly espoused internet-forum notion that there's some law corporations would be breaking if they don't engage in the most sociopathic behavior possible in order to "maximize shareholder value". There is in fact no such law. Bringing up Dodge vs. Ford is relevant, because that is indeed where the concept of "maximizing shareholder value" was brought up, and it's the only case ever cited.

The notion that shareholders can bring about a suit in the United States because Google is not dodging enough taxes enough is absurd.

Re: The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions

#140

Post by tyn »

me2i81 wrote: post #118
tyn wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why companies should pay taxes at all? Their shareholders should and they do pay taxes according to their income but what's the purpose of an extra taxation to a legal entity?

When the corporate tax rate is low, people have a large incentive to create corporations to shelter their income. This already happens now quite a bit given corporate deductions and the low tax rates on dividends, but if you got rid of corporate taxes altogether, you'd just increase the amount of money that stayed within those little corporations, thus decreasing the total overall tax revenue.

If the money stays in the company forever, why should they be taxed? Imagine a company that makes billions but never distributes income in any form, a 90% shareholder could starve to death. Income should be taxed only when distributed, it's like it doesn't exist if it's not.
Post reply on HN