If you run a company in many parts of the world, one of your biggest concerns is not where you're going to find customers or how you're going to close sales. It's how you're going to grow your business given the tax burdens you face.
That's because, in many parts of the world, including in some of the most important consumer and business markets, corporate tax rates are pretty darn high.
But making lots and lots of money and dealing with taxes isn't such a big deal for some of the world's largest corporations. They have the resources to minimize the taxes they pay through complex corporate structures and accounting trickery.
One company that is guilty of using techniques that many would call 'shady' at best is Google. An article in Bloomberg BusinessWeek yesterday details how the search giant uses a variety of techniques to keep its overall corporate tax rate at a "super-low" 2.4%. That, of course, is substantially lower than the tax rates in the major countries where Google derives much of its revenue.
BusinessWeek's Jesse Drucker explains:
When a company in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa purchases a search ad through Google, it sends the money to Google Ireland. The Irish government taxes corporate profits at 12.5 percent, but Google mostly escapes that tax because its earnings don't stay in the Dublin office, which reported a pretax profit of less than 1 percent of revenues in 2008.
Irish law makes it difficult for Google to send the money directly to Bermuda without incurring a large tax hit, so the payment makes a brief detour through the Netherlands, since Ireland doesn't tax certain payments to companies in other European Union states. Once the money is in the Netherlands, Google can take advantage of generous Dutch tax laws. Its subsidiary there, Google Netherlands Holdings, is just a shell (it has no employees) and passes on about 99.8 percent of what it collects to Bermuda.
According to some observers, this strategy violates Google's 'do no evil' mantra. One accounting professor, Abraham J. Briloff, told BusinessWeek that Google is "flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they're perpetrating evil under our noses."
Evil? Hardly. Google's tax strategy is, first and foremost, entirely legal. Of course, what's legal might not be ethical. But is Google's tax strategy unethical? No.
In Briloff's view, Google's evil seems to stems from the fact that Google originated at Stanford University out of research funded by the National Science Foundation. But Briloff's notion that the United States citizenry "paid for" Google is disingenuous:
- Despite its tax strategy, Google has paid billions of dollars in corporate taxes around the world.
- Google's backers and early employees have paid significant tax on their windfalls.
- Many Google investors of all shapes and sizes have paid capital gains tax on their Google investment profits.
- Google searches and ads facilitate countless commercial transactions which invariably create tax revenue on multiple levels.
- At the end of 2009, Google had just under 20,000 employees worldwide -- employees who pay various taxes (income, sales, etc.).
- The stock Stanford received in Google was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in 2005.
The reality is that Google has grown the pie. A company that didn't exist fifteen years ago in an industry that barely existed fifteen years ago has created immense wealth and thousands of jobs, and has directly and indirectly contributed billions of dollars to government coffers. Which begs the question: how much more should Google pay in tax? 25%? 50%? 100%?
That's obviously a tough question for the critics to answer, because there isn't a good answer. When you have governments with trillions of dollars of debt, you will never find enough money.
But there are easy answers to the important questions. Is Google's money better spent on product development and innovation? Or is it better spent financing debt-riddled and broken governments? Is Google's money better spent on hiring new employees who will help the company thrive? Or is it better spent on taxes that will, in part, help pay the salaries of bureaucrats? Is Google's money better spent subsidizing valuable services the company offers -- in many cases at no cost -- to individuals and businesses around the world? Or is it better spent subsidizing services governments provide?
The unfortunate thing about Google's tax situation is not that Google is engaging in such a convoluted tax strategy, but rather that to run a competitive company that can invest heavily in innovation, it practically has to. If there's an evil here, it's that smaller companies can't expand, innovate and create wealth in the same fashion. And that hurts all of us.
Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.
9:48AM on 22nd October 2010
I don't think any right minded person is really angry at Google or any corporate milking the system itself, as long as it's within the law.
I know personally what winds me up is more the thought that the "system" is limited and has so many loopholes that could in theory be relatively easily closed to avoid money draining out of the economy.
9:56AM on 22nd October 2010
Patricio,
I usually greatly enjoy your posts, but your argument is even more disingenuous than the one you take issue with.
Small businesses in aggregate also contribute tremendous wealth and jobs to the economy. Yet they cannot take advantage of the same tax loopholes Google and many larger corporations do. So they pay 30% and up in corporate taxes.
All your closing arguments would apply to smaller companies. Sure, we'd all wish to pay less taxes. The reality is that individuals and small business end up paying for the large corporations.
10:01AM on 22nd October 2010
Google apologist #1
10:02AM on 22nd October 2010
i dont thing google is evil
11:04AM on 22nd October 2010
Not evil? pfft.... what planet are we living on? Goog is hiding behind their no evil mantra. hah.
3:33PM on 22nd October 2010
In honour of their tax evading ways, the next Google phone should be called the AlCaphone
Tech Reporter at Econsultancy
4:23PM on 22nd October 2010
James,
Google is not "draining" money out of any economy. Unless, of course, you believe that Google's earnings don't naturally belong to Google and its shareholders.
Benoit,
I think you both get the point and miss it at the same time. The point is quite simple: there is nothing wrong with Google paying less in taxes -- it benefits just about everybody. What is tragic is the fact that only companies as large as Google have the resources necessary to minimize their taxes in this fashion. This, of course, puts smaller businesses at a disadvantage, although not for the reason you mention.
Everyone would be better off if all companies, regardless of size, were able to keep more of their earnings. There would be more money spent on hiring, expansion, R&D, and for governments, the actual tax base would grow.
5:58AM on 23rd October 2010
With all this fancy financing why even bother concern ourselves with whether rich, or whoever else, are getting tax cuts? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2010/10/isnt-it-time-you-did-the-dutch-sandwich/
10:17PM on 23rd October 2010
With the amount of corporations and individuals that are evading paying taxes. I think Google should be applauded for owning and paying what they owe like they are supposed to.
9:00AM on 25th October 2010
Saying that as employees pay tax it is perfectly OK for corporations to minimise their tax is a totally false argument. Corporation have a moral responsibility to pay taxes in the countries they operate in, in exactly the same way as employees do. Unfortunately tax loopholes allow companies to legally avoid taxes, to the detriment of the countries where they operate - though this is generally only large corporates where the overheads of the costs for avoiding tax are small in comparison to the savings. Whether it is companies like Google avoiding taxes, or the various shenanigans of the banking sector, or whatever, this lack of corporate responsibility is not morally acceptable behaviour, and gives rise to things like the banking crisis. If Google wants to operate in a country, they should pay their taxes in that country.
9:02AM on 25th October 2010
Since when did e-consultancy become a platform for neo-liberalist economic illiteracy? This really is a terrible post; I don't know where to start, or to stop.
Have you been on another planet for the last few months? Presumably you've missed the extensive news on Ireland's economic decline, due in no small part to its low-tax policies.
To take issue with a couple of your comments:
No company on earth could exist without the support and framework government provides, it's absolutely impossible. No company exists in a vacuum. The government services subsidised by tax revenues provide police to protect staff, customers and offices, ambulances to collect ill or injured people, roads to let staff get to work, water, trains, electricity infrastructure....I could go on. Never mind that the services have to be paid for so if one company can get away with paying a tiny amount of tax, others (small businesses and individuals) have to subsidise the services. If anything, the business with the low-tax bill is being subsidised by everyone else. To be fair I think you agree with this, but your argument is that we should have access to the same techniques as larger companies, rather than larger companies being made to pay more tax.
This really takes the biscuit. Where on earth does the innovation come from? A magic tree? To suggest that a company practically has to pay low tax to be innovative is disingenuous nonsense. Innovation in any IP-related company comes from its staff and technology, staff that have been educated at school and university thanks to the massive support given to education by governments. Try innovating with poorly-educated staff, or ill staff, or staff who can't get to work.
If you don't like paying tax, don't run a business. Quit moaning.
I'd recommend your swinging by www.taxresearch.org.uk/blog/ - you might have your eyes opened.
9:30AM on 25th October 2010
Terrible article – so if you create an industry, sorry 'pie', that didn't exist before you get to decide when you have paid enough tax?
Not evil, just wrong.
11:14AM on 25th October 2010
Well researched and informative. I agree that Google has to use this payment logistic obstacle course to help itself rather then help a government who would probably waste the money anyway. Google for president!... lol?
Social Media Manager at Sisarina, Inc
1:04PM on 25th October 2010
"If there's an evil here, it's that smaller companies can't expand, innovate and create wealth in the same fashion. And that hurts all of us."
Here! Here!
MD at Click Vision Media ltd
4:08PM on 25th October 2010
An interesting post especially in the current climate! Is this big bank syndrome and should this sort of thing be happening to the big corporates out there, should they be allowed to do this? Dont get me wrong Google is a huge part of my business but why is it that these sort of loop holes are not so readily availiable to the smaller business out there? We carry on lining the pockets of the bankers and corporate businesses when is our turn for a break?!!
Tech Reporter at Econsultancy
6:39PM on 25th October 2010
Anonymous,
I enjoyed reading your comments about Ireland because they demonstrate precisely the "economic illiteracy" you refer to. Where to begin?
1. Most of Ireland's tax revenue comes from income and property-related tax (VAT, stamp duty, etc.); not corporate tax. So if you want to look at Irish taxes in relation to its woes, you need to look at the entire picture.
2. Ireland's primary problem right now is its sovereign debt. It doesn't matter how much tax revenue you have; if you're spending more than you have, and borrowing much of it, you'll find yourself in trouble. Much of Ireland's spending was driven by increases in property-related tax revenue. This type of revenue is almost always temporary, and much of this spending was directed to social programs and increased wages for public sector employees. In other words, temporary revenue was used to fund programs and wage increases that, for obvious political reasons, almost always become permanent.
3. As in many countries, a good number of individuals in Ireland pay little to no income tax. The top .5% of earners (approximately 11,000 people) contribute ~18% of all income tax collected. But, the 770,000 individuals earning less than €17,000 contribute almost nothing -- €20m -- to the tax base and a median earner (€25,000) pays on average just 4% of his or her income in tax. It's fun to be a populist and berate the wealthy, but the numbers don't lie: if you make more than €34,000/year in Ireland, you pay one of the highest marginal tax rates in the world. So why aspire to make more than €34,000/year, or to become a producer?
4. Most social spending programs obviously benefit the middle and lower classes. And thanks to the global recession, politicians in Ireland only upped their spending on these programs. Yet the primary beneficiaries of these programs pay little to no income tax. In the fantasy world, it's nice to pretend that you can stick the rich with every tab. In the real world, they can and will only subsidize so much.
5. As it relates to corporations, Increasing the corporate tax significantly will not increase revenue; companies will simply leave, further deteriorating Ireland's tax base. Very few dispute this, including many in the Irish government, which is fighting attempts to get it to raise its corporate tax rate.
You can either look at the hard facts, or you can bury your head in the sand and pretend that taxes don't change the behavior of individuals and businesses (like Google) in dramatic ways.
Finally, I assume you, like most of us, live in a country where there is an income tax. So I would ask the question: why haven't you voluntarily sent a check for 50%, 75%, 90% or 100% of your earnings to your government? If your government is directly and indirectly responsible for everything you have, and you believe that those wealthier than you should give even more of the fruits of their labor, why don't you first offer up more of your own?
10:01PM on 25th October 2010
I'm not going to bother writing an essay as I think you've done a good perfectly job of supporting my argument. The simple point is that the Irish tax model is fundamentally flawed and the fact that the economy is in such a terrible state simply proves that your argument is nonsense. It has failed, pure and simple. The primary problem is a wafer-thin tax base.
The tax take should have been based on a strong private sector generating strong tax receipts. Instead it has generated an environment where multi-billion dollar companies pay virtually no tax and when they leave let the Irish people to pick up the pieces. Property speculators borrowed vast sums from the likes of AIB and left the government to carry the can when the property bubble burst. Your espousing the low-tax approach simply shows up your lack of understanding and frankly lack of compassion towards the people in Ireland suffering unemployment and vastly reduced prospects. Now that's tragic.
Without wanting to sound lofty, this model of globalised capitalism has failed monumentally. Wealth doesn't flow down, rather it's concentrated at the top...low tax bases erode the host country...inequality rises and that harms us all.
Tech Reporter at Econsultancy
1:42AM on 26th October 2010
Anonymous,
In other words, you have no empirical evidence to back up what you say.
How are corporations responsible for the problems faced by Ireland's citizens? If you look at the numbers, the average wage earner in Ireland simply isn't contributing. As Ronan Lyons noted:
There are three basic economic facts you fail to acknowledge:
1. You cannot have a stable economy when the people who rely most on the state contribute little or nothing to it. If a society decides that it is the place of government to provide a great number of services and safety nets for its citizens, that is fine. But is disingenuous to believe that a small group of citizens (your greedy rich people) who use disproportionately fewer of those services and safety nets can and will support them for the vast majority of citizens who earn less.
2. You cannot have a strong private sector if the government takes a high percentage of what a company makes. One of the primary reasons companies like Google and Apple are in Ireland in the first place (creating thousands upon thousands of jobs) is the low taxes. Increase taxes to unreasonable levels and they will leave. In other words, the level tax receipts you think the government can generate on the back of business doesn't exist. It's just like all of those phantom affiliate tax revenues state governments in the U.S. aren't collecting.
3. The problem in Ireland isn't revenue; it's spending. The Irish government used a short-term rise in tax revenues from sources tied to the business cycle to finance social programs and public sector salaries that it should have known it wouldn't have the money to support when a rainy day came along. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Again, you can't expect a relative handful of individuals and businesses to subsidize a welfare state that offers them little of value in return.
Government bailouts have nothing to do with taxes outside of the fact that these bailouts aren't free and robbing Peter to pay Paul now seems like a decent way to pay the sovereign debt incurred as a result of the bailouts.
The truth of the matter is that many people have argued for low taxes and against government bailouts. True supporters of 'capitalism' will tell you that private enterprise should be allowed to fail. In most countries, it was the incestuous marriage between large private enterprise, like banks, and government that created the moral hazard that led to this unfortunate mess.
If you consider that someone making more than €34,000/year in Ireland has a marginal tax rate of ~50% -- one of the highest in the developed world -- and that 11,000 of the citizens in Ireland contributed 18% of the total income tax raised in the country while average wage earners paid 0-4% of their income in taxes, yet benefit most from government spending, you might need to check your definition of the word 'inequality'.
9:38AM on 26th October 2010
Actually Patricio I could quote plenty of empirical evidence but I really don't want to see the further scarring of what is a fine web site through what is becoming a nonsensical rant. You might be paid to write this nonsense but I'm not. This comment is the last of it from me.
You started as an advocate of a tax scheme and claim that businesses will desert Ireland if taxes are "unreasonable." Google doesn't pay the headline 12.5% rate - it pays a fraction of that. They probably will leave if the tax rates are raised? Ergo the strategy is totally flawed. So even a 12.5% rate is "unreasonable." Rubbish.
You continue to miss the vital point - the corporate tax structure has failed. It did not create the sustainable private sector base the country needs to fund the public sector. This has damaging implications not just for Ireland but other developing economies and indeed the USA. Yet you believe it is a sensible strategy that should be extended to all businesses, thus further decimating the corporate tax take around the world.
You have shifted the argument to place the blame on the middle and lower classes, and champion the cause of the 'rich' in Ireland. I happen to agree that the income tax structure is flawed and needs a severe reorganisation but the real issue we're talking about is an entirely flawed corporate tax structure. Social spending on the middle and lower classes increased because of the recession and the increased support they needed after suffering unemployment amongst other things (your source) - what was the alternative? Let them rot?
You continue to parade the €34,000 threshold as if it's some clear sign that people are put off becoming entrepreneurs or producers as you call them. That's rubbish. You're telling me people sit around and think "well I was going to start a business but since the marginal tax rate here is lower than in the UK and Italy and Denmark and Finland I don't think I'll bother." Come off it.
Your final point about my definition of inequality shows you up for who you are. You're telling me that the rich in Ireland are suffering from inequality? They're suffering - perhaps - from a degree of unfairness, but certainly not inequality. The definition I use is here. Did you know that about 1 in 10 children in Ireland suffer from permanent poverty? That's inequality.
And by the by, I agree with you on the moral problem surrounding the banking collapse in Ireland, you're dead right. The relationship was incestuous, it was in many countries around the world and we're all paying a heavy price for it. The public sector spending was based on a property bubble, you're dead right, but again I come back to the problem at the core: the whole strategy was flawed and was ultimately entirely unsustainable.
Tech Reporter at Econsultancy
4:48PM on 26th October 2010
Anonymous,
I suppose this just about sums everything up: you essentially believe that the job of the private sector is to fund the public sector. As I've alluded to before, citizens in a country should be able to determine what the role of government is. But needless to say, if the austerity measures in European countries are any indication, funding a social democracy, even where high taxes are present, is quite difficult. For better or worse, money doesn't grow on trees, and sadly there are often tragic results when everybody forgets that. Tax revenue is finite, and you can't spend more than you have for decades without consequence. Obviously, that leaves lots of tough decisions. Tough decisions that were clearly put off for far too long in many countries.
As the Rolling Stones sang, "You can't always get what you want." Which is why around the world in so many countries, many individuals are thinking about the relationships they have with their governments and asking, "What do I need?"
Back in the real world, Google employs over 2,000 people in Ireland. Apple has thousands of Irish employees, and is one of the largest employers in Munster. Microsoft employs over 1,000 people in Ireland. They are but a few technology companies employing large numbers of people in Ireland thanks to the fact that Ireland has made itself an attractive place to do business. Just because you believe these companies don't contribute enough -- "enough" apparently being defined as whatever it takes to fund the public sector irrespective of the sustainability of the public sector's size -- doesn't mean that they don't contribute to Ireland. They do, and I'm sure most individuals in Ireland would be disappointed if Google, Apple, Microsoft, et. al. abandoned Ireland and left thousands of people unemployed.
10:28AM on 27th October 2010
Keep going Patricio....
I suppose this just about sums everything up: you essentially believe that the job of the private sector is to fund the public sector.
There is an implied social contract in any economy: the government (in this case Ireland) says to Google "you base your business here, employ lots of people and we'll provide the necessary framework for you to operate, we'll make sure your employees are healthy and happy, we'll provide police to patrol the streets and keep your offices safe, we'll provide a legal framework through which you can be confident you'll be paid..and all we ask for is 12.5% of your profits, lower than many other developed countries in the world."
All Ireland asks for is 12.5% and these businesses don't even pay that, as you have already highlighted.
The public sector has to be funded from somewhere and business has to have support to operate, so the two are totally intertwined.
I don't believe the job of the private sector is to fund the public sector, rather I believe that is one of its roles, just as it is the public sector's role to provide the support and indeed demand that will let private enterprise flourish.
However one of the major problems facing many developed economies is rampant tax evasion that undermines the public sector and undermines the economy. Examples are here: Greece. UK.
I'm not for a moment saying that I would be not disappointed if these technology companies left Ireland, in fact I think it would be a travesty for the employees, there is no doubt of that. I'll go further and say I think Google and Apple do brilliant things, they're amazing companies that have started, defined and grown new sectors and have done it better than anyone else. They deserve the fruits of their labours, but they also need to recognise the support they had, get and will get.
Let's go back to your original points just to make the flaws in your argument crystal clear. You said:
The flaw is obvious - without customers or closed sales there would be no tax to pay. I run a business and I certainly don't worry about tax burdens. I worry about paying the staff, about finding new customers, about completing work profitably. And, the headline corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12.5%, one of the lowest in the world. And to further puncture your argument, the corporate tax rate in China is 25% (same source) and their economy is actually growing too fast.
You also said:
Nonsense. Google is well documented as a high gross profit company already.
It has never paid a dividend and never intends to.
Google has a cash pile totalling $26.5 Billion.
Apple has a cash pile totalling around $48billion.
Tech Reporter at Econsultancy
5:12PM on 27th October 2010
Anonymous,
Did the implied social contract also include a five-year, 59% increase in public sector salaries, an 18% increase in public sector workers, and an 81.3% increase in the pension bill?
That's some social contract! I want to know who negotiated that!
It's somewhat funny that you would talk about tax evasion in Greece, and refer to Greece as a "developed" economy. Given the unmitigated disaster that is the Greek 'economy' (government wages and social programs account for ~75% of spending!), it's no surprise that few want to pay a top income tax rate of 40%, a VAT tax of 23% and 44% (between employers and individuals) for social security.
Needless to say, the public sector has been Greece's 'economy' and citizens are voting with their wallets. Tax evasion is a powerful signal that individuals believe they get far less from government than they contribute. Would you pay $200 for a bottle of Coca-Cola? Or $150,000 for a Timex watch? Of course not. So why would anyone want to give most of his or her income to the Greek government?
So taxes have no impact on how many employees you hire, what prices you charge customers and thus, your profitability? That's interesting. I'm sure many business owners would be interested in learning your secret.
Far from puncturing my argument, you demonstrate how willing you are to make the fatal assumption that ''correlation is cause' -- a telling mistake. Corporate income tax can't be an issue, because China is booming despite a 25% corporate income tax, right?
China's corporate tax rate is 25%, except when it isn't. You also have China's tight control of its currency, which has been used to keep exports cheap, and thus demand high. China also provides subsidies to manufacturers so that they can compete more effectively in foreign markets. Some are direct, but one indirect subsidy deserving particular note is the VAT tax rebate, which some manufacturers basically pocket because the buyer doesn't know what their supplier's rebate is. And let's not ignore the half a trillion dollar government stimulus enacted following the financial crisis. Overall, China has actually been a far better place to do business than it might look on paper. In other words, the benefits companies receive from operating in China are likely to be perceived as being greater than the cost of those benefits.
It's clear we don't see eye to eye, and that's fine. But reality is reality. You can argue that corporations aren't paying their fair share in many countries, and that they should in many cases be paying more. But it's not going to happen. Corporations, like the people who run them, behave the way they do in response to external forces.
Governments that spend more than they take in, and treat citizens and businesses like ATMs, will continue to see their tax base dwindle as both groups find it's worth the effort to minimize how much they let the state take from them. When you look at the innovations produced by companies like Google and Apple, as compared to what so many governments have 'produced' with all their spending and 'investment', it's hard not to think that this is a good thing.
6:10PM on 27th October 2010
Since we've both proven we can use Google perhaps it's time to draw this to a close?
By the way:
I didn't say that at all. I said that the tax burden is the last thing I worry about.
Perhaps China was a poor example - I could of course pick from tens of other countries in the world that have a higher headline corporate tax rate than Ireland, but of course you'd know all about them. I note the 15% special rate is still higher than Ireland's rate.
I'm not necessarily saying there is causality, rather making a point about your inference that the tax rate in Ireland is "pretty darn high" - it's plainly not, regardless of the various subsidies on offer elsewhere in the world.
I sincerely hope you're wrong about that. If not, when the corporate kleptocracy has bled us all dry and the cold nights are drawing in, I'll chuck another copy of Ayn Rand on the fire and think of you.
7:54PM on 27th October 2010
Patricio - since we were talking about correlation and causation I thought you might be interested in this article that shows there is no correlation between higher marginal rates of income tax in the US and slowing GDP. Fancy that! You might like some of the comments too. One person says:
They could almost be referring to you when you said "the 770,000 individuals earning less than €17,000 contribute almost nothing -- €20m -- to the tax base and a median earner (€25,000) pays on average just 4% of his or her income in tax."
Couldn't resist!
http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/
TTFN
Tech Reporter at Econsultancy
5:00PM on 28th October 2010
Anonymous,
I never argued that higher marginal tax rates have an impact on GDP. Given that governments can spend money (much of it borrowed or printed) and that this spending is reflected in GDP figures, I'd actually argue that GDP is a fairly useless metric, at least in terms of quantifying meaningful "economic growth" or lackthereof. It's what's growing or not growing that tells you the true health of a nation's economy.
On to your other point: you can't tax something that isn't there. Just as you can't perpetually provide costly services and programs to large numbers of individuals who are unable to pay for them. Whether the 770,000 people in Ireland making €17,000/year or less can afford to contribute, on average, more than €25/year in income tax to the state is a rhetorical question I'll let you mull on over your fire. :)
Creative Director at Foliovision
5:19PM on 2nd November 2010
So Patricio, when do you start the gas ovens and prison camps to clean up those "individuals who are unable to pay for costly services and programs".
I forgot: your approach, just let them to starve to death. Anglo-Irish Potato famine style.
And who is supposed to pay for the police and military to herd these starving millions?
Perhaps it might be a better idea to offer better education and more opportunity so that some of these untermenschen one day will be able to pay taxes as wealthy contributors to the economy?
No - much more fun to starve, them to death, eh Patty?
Tech Reporter at Econsultancy
3:04AM on 3rd November 2010
Alec,
Please direct all of your billing inquiries to Keith Richards. Thanks in advance.
9:28AM on 3rd November 2010
It's funny that you can't actually tackle any of the problems with your argument or the challenges in the comments head-on, rather you jump from one thing to the next. You started off with the nonsense claims that tax rates around the world are 'pretty darn high' (without providing any sort of objective evidence), you claimed that Google practically has to engage in sophisticated schemes (without providing any evidence), you claimed that Google has "grown the pie" (without providing any evidence, never mind the concomitant decline in print advertising around the world), you claimed that early backers have paid tax on their windfalls (without providing any evidence, never mind the fact that many early backers of Google were enormously wealthy to begin with and may well have complicated tax schemes of their own to limit their capital gains tax exposure)...are you detecting a theme? And you've ended up saying the poor should pay more tax. Yay! Take away what little they have! Yay! Poor people can afford an occasional treat - tax them more! Yay!
And linking to a silly article about the Rolling Stones' tax schemes just reinforces the silliness of your debate and your right-wing prejudices. The Laffer curve is rolled out time and time again and it's at best a highly simplistic and naive theory, at worst nonsense.
Whenever I read garbage the like of which you've written I think of JK Rowling (have you heard of her? She wrote a mildly successful series of books based around 'Harry Potter'), someone who was supported through single parenthood in Edinburgh by the state, a state that providing housing benefit amongst other things. She has remained in the UK despite her vast wealth and earlier in the year wrote an article for the Times where she said (I paraphrase);
She chose the former. She's a full UK tax payer, gives phenomenal amounts to charity and is a credit to the welfare state.
Your views are utterly pathetic next to someone like that.
Creative Director at Foliovision
2:10PM on 4th November 2010
Since some people managed to pay no tax and because at one point marginal taxes in Britain were in the nineties, that is an argument that it's okay henceforward to never pay taxes?
What needs to be done soon is to make these schemes illegal and those who practice them permanent exiles. The companies who insist will also no longer be allowed to operate at all. Some sharp legislative measures will cool the ardour of you free market types to stiff the system which fed you, educated you and even now protects you.
White collar crime is still crime, Patricio. You are little different from the guy stealing car radios just because he can.
4:38AM on 2nd December 2010
It's too bad that this article isn't more focused on how evil the government is for taxing coorporate taxes in the first place. Google is paying more than it's fair share of taxes, but to what end? So government can waste the money? I love these evil people wanting to sock it to the rich, yet their time will come when all the rich are gone and our greedy government needs to feed on them. It's easy to cheer from the crowd when the lions are eating the Christians my friends, but what exactly happens when there are no more Christians left? Yes, the lions are coming for you too my friend.
4:46AM on 14th May 2011
I agree with your post Mr. Patricio Robles because managing a company is not easy, there's a lot of obligation and responsibility of being a manager.
11:37PM on 3rd August 2011
It's too bad that this article isn't more focused on how evil the government is for taxing coorporate taxes in the first place. Google is paying more than it's fair share of taxes