Most economists agree that corporate taxes are bad anyways: <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/18/163106924/a-tax-plan-that-economists-love-and-politicians-hate" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/18/163106924/a-tax-pl...</a><p><i>"The corporate income tax makes no sense whatsoever," said Robert Frank, a professor at Cornell. "We don't want to prevent Microsoft and General Motors ... from investing more and improving their product line," Baker said. "That's a good thing in my view."<p>Our economists said if you want to tax rich people as public policy, then tax rich people — tax the people who own corporations. But taxing the corporation itself is taxing the thing that really does create jobs.</i><p>In my personal opinion, the money does more good in Google's hands than in the government's hands.
Maybe it's because I'm young and don't have experience with large-scale tax problems, but I have struggled for years and still cannot understand why companies do this. Is it <i>truly</i> in Google's interest to work towards the minimization of government capability wherever it is? To ensure that California roads are less taken care of? To ensure that any local public debt is increased rather than decreased? It doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't a company <i>want</i> to contribute its share of taxes to the government of where it is located, so that the quality of life is better for everyone there including the employees?<p>It seems to me that Google, especially being in California, is being...well, something close to evil by making sure they help out their local governments and people <i>as little as legally possible</i>.<p>I understand that their profits are higher each quarter because of this. I understand that's what shareholders demand. But <i>why</i>?! Can this attitude lead to anything except terrible news? I just don't get it.
This quote stuck in my craw:<p>"Google said it complies with all tax rules, and its investment in various European countries helps their economies. In the U.K., “we also employ over 2,000 people, help hundreds of thousands of businesses to grow online, and invest millions supporting new tech businesses in East London,” the Mountain View, California-based company said in a statement..."<p>Everybody contributes to the economy, not just entities like Google, and they pay a higher tax rate for the income they derive through that contribution. Bringing these issues up is asking for double credit.
It's so frustrating to see this come up again and again and see people refuse to acknowledge the reality of this. Corporations, separate taxable entities, can be created on demand, and profit and loss distributed at will across them. Given that, there's very little chance that a large company that knows what it's doing will ever pay any significant taxes.<p>Argue about loopholes or Republicats all you want, this is fundamentally built into our system and there is NO ONE who wants to take on changing it. I guarantee you Romney and Obama BOTH know how this works and yet they play dumb in tax debates for hours, and no one calls them out on it.<p>I think getting rid of the corporate tax makes sense because it would at least level the playing field for smaller companies, but pretending that it makes a difference for larger companies just demonstrates how uninformed the electorate is.
The only one at fault here are the governments that allow this. The government is the one trying to collect money, they are the ones who make the rules about collection, and they are the ones with the power to enforce said rules.<p>If governments are allowing this, it's because they want to, not because of some accidental goof.
I just love it when politicians express indignant outrage when they're the ones who made the rules...<p>Tax competition is a good thing. Kudos to Google and Bermuda.
a) It is in the interest of all companies, shareholders, and consumers for corporations to pay the smallest amount of tax possible. Higher taxes are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower supply of products.<p>b) All of this 'tax dodging' is perfectly legal. But the laws are not perfect that incentivize this sort of behavior.<p>c) Of course the Europeans opt for some larger-government solution, all in the name of 'fairness'. I say that much injustice indeed has been done in the name of this fairness, since those with the lawmaking power are the ones who decide what's 'fair.' These outcomes usually do not promote liberty, free markets, or growth.<p>d) I'm sick of those who spout off this 'fair share' business about taxes. Show me some figures on who is paying the taxes and who is free-riding (as far as personal income tax goes), and I will then be able to hear an argument about 'fair share.' Hint: the top few percent pay the vast majority of income taxes.
From the article:<p>"Last week, the European Union’s executive body, the European Commission, advised member states to create blacklists of tax havens and adopt anti-abuse rules. Tax evasion and avoidance, which cost the EU 1 trillion euros ($1.3 trillion) a year, are “scandalous” and “an attack on the fundamental principle of fairness,” Algirdas Semeta, the EC’s commissioner for taxation, said at a press conference in Brussels."<p>This is the issue. The Euro-zone is in a world of hurt and having a few hundred billion euros would "fix" that problem. So they are gearing up to change their tax laws, which is going to be a huge fight (taking money from wealthy people or corporations is always strongly resisted by those people).<p>I see it as a side effect of the EU fiscal problem in general (the root of which is non-soverign control over fiscal policy and <i>enforcement</i>) and suspect it will impact Europe at least as much as the end of the cold war did, if not more. I'm not entirely comfortable predicting what those effects will be.
I find it interesting that the tech titans, who seem to overwhelmingly support high-tax politicians and policies, are also engaged in the most aggressive tax avoidance in the world.<p>We only need to look at Europe to see how widespread tax avoidance plus high government spending creates an unsustainable path that puts the entire economy and country at risk.<p>Seems to me the only rational path is to either support lower government spending across the board to complement the aggressive tax avoidance, or demand that leading companies pay taxes according to the state or country where the bulk of their employees are, and not based on wherever a shell company may reside.
Don't be angry at Google, be angry at government. It's years that companies are using this - I would call it a government failure.
What I don't understand is why - please tell me why - the EU is not doing anything to fix it? Irland got billions from EU to get to the level where they are today (they were to poorest country in europe before), don't tell me that the EU hasn't any way to press Ireland or Netherland to change their law. Again, it needs to go through the press to shake it a bit.<p>But isn't it also the same problem in the US? Some states have very low taxes on business profits. So you can see very often companies having offices over there?
Google is reaping benefits from the infrastructure built on taxes paid by small companies and yet they fucking dare to say they do more good than them.<p>Fucking hypocrites
Can someone explain to me why we don't lower corporate taxes across the board and raise dividend and capital gains taxes to compensate. It seems to me that the later taxes are fairer and more difficult to dodge. Plus they encourage reinvestment (eg. hiring) since money gets taxed when or if it leaves the company.
I wonder... why do they not hire abut 2.000.000 people in Bermuda? That would be very helpful to Bermuda's economy, would it not? Instead of just pumping money into it, give them some jobs.
Not sure I’m buying much of the righteous indignation going about regarding corporate taxes these days especially when politicians partake in it. If they put themselves into a situation where they have to depend on the moral choices of multinational corporations they are part of the problem.<p>And in fact it’s not a moral issue at all but a legal one. And if the conduct is legal then it’s not Google’s problem, is it?! the focus on Google in some of this tax talk is indicative of some sort of a PR offensive against them by governments and other bodies who aren't fond of Google and are using this as a wedge issue against the company.<p>Everyone does it and it’s been done for a while, governments allow much of it to encourage corporations to hire and invest within the local economies and now they pretend to be surprised and appalled by it. This just reeks of hypocrisy.
We all know that always are going to be changed and earnings will drop by quite a bit, the govs are starving for cash. They were always hungry but now it's starvation time.