I can think of worse things that could happen with that tax money than have it go to an innovative, highly competitive American technology company that pays huge social dividends.
<i>“Who is it that paid for the underlying concept on which they built these billions of dollars of revenues?” Briloff said. “It was paid for by the United States citizenry.”</i><p>He says that as though they got nothing in return for the time / money they spent on Google.
I'm dubious of people who equate paying fewer taxes with the concept of evil, as if government ever did anything to <i>earn</i> income. There's far too prevalent a mindset in this country that sees falling tax revenue as a negative, then further perpetrate the lie by ascribing ownership of these missing tax revenues to the people. They use personal pronouns like "you," "we," and "our" when speaking of them.<p>Follow the money, or the lack thereof. Behind every one of these complaints lies, somewhere, someone who has some self-serving use for that money.
misleading, the article goes on to say Google paid a 22.2% effective tax rate, the headlines 2.4% rate was only on a portion of their revenue, not all of it.
<i>“flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they’re perpetrating evil under our noses,” said Abraham J. Briloff</i><p>Paying the lowest amount of taxes required by law is certainly not evil. I wonder how much extra Mr. Briloff sends to the IRS, and I wonder how evil he considers that to be. If the law makers in the various jurisdictions didn't intend the tax code to be used in this way it's certainly in their purview to change it. Since this has not happened one can only assume that GOOG et al are acting in the manner which the law makers intended.<p>In my opinion persons such as Briloff who derive their income from schools which are largely publicly funded to teach people a trade which is largely only necessary because of the tax code are the people who <i>should</i> be paying extra because of what the tax code provides for them. (eg. their livelihoods)<p>If Briloff wants people to pay extra taxes perhaps he should encourage the gov't to provide services worth in excess of what they cost. Perhaps Mr. Briloff forgets that governments are instituted amongst men to secure rights and not to redistribute and destroy wealth.
Tax avoidance is a perfectly legitimate tactic that every corporation with accountants and lawyers worth their salt employs. Not to do so would be to lose a large competitive advantage. The problem, of course, is the complicated tax code that can be circumvented.
I have to groan when I hear people talk about "lost" money like this. Whether it's the RIAA/MPAA or a government analyst, the money is not lost, it is simply being put to (ostensibly more productive) other uses. Of course, the governments of the world could choose to stop trying to sway public sentiment and just close the tax loopholes. Unless they compensate for it in some way by significantly lowering taxes for startups and small businesses, I wouldn't be surprised to see general technological innovation significantly hindered.
There is some[1] evidence to show that higher corporate tax rates result in lower wages so it's at least partially equivalent to a higher income tax rate.<p>[1] <a href="http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2010/04/corporate-tax-incidence-some-evidence.html" rel="nofollow">http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...</a>
This is from October, has already been posted here but I guess the anti-google frenzy that is happening on HN these days will bring it back to the top. Also if your read the article, it says Facebook, Microsoft and just about any tech companies do the same. What's wrong with legally paying as less tax as possible?
Companies have massive incentive to use every tax loophole they can find. Honestly, what did they expect to happen? Another option is for the government to fix all the loopholes and then watch these companies move out of the US.
The title implies that Google alone is "skirting" the $60 Billion, when really it is all the companies using this strategy combined are responsible for the "$60 Billion"
Honest question: do you think more wealth/jobs/long term economic growth is created by Google having that $60 Billion or the government having the $60 Billion?<p>Second honest question: a corporation is owned by people. People pay taxes. Why should those people have to pay taxes twice on the same money - once one it gets to google and once when it gets to them?