Google boss: I'm very proud of our tax avoidance scheme
Source: The Independent
The head of the internet giant Google has defiantly defended his companys tax avoidance strategy claiming he was proud of the steps it had taken to cut its tax bill which were just capitalism.
In an interview in New York Eric Schmidt, Googles Chairman, confirmed the company had no intention of paying more to the UK exchequer. Documents filed last month show that Google generated around £2.5 billion in UK sales last year but paid just £6m in corporation tax.
The Californian based search giant has also been revealed to have sheltered nearly $10bn of its revenues in Bermuda allowing it to avoid some $2bn in worldwide income taxes in 2011.
... I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate, he said.
Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/google-boss-im-very-proud-of-our-tax-avoidance-scheme-8411974.html
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...spending the rest of his natural days at hard labor. His ilk serve to enslave humanity.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Google does a lot of things to benefit humanity.
http://www.google.com/giving/
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Now Google concentrates on maximizing shareholder value, like every near monopoly. What I object to is the tax dodging.
Time was, before Reagan made it patriotic to dodge taxes, the corporations paid 50-percent of their profits in tax. In fact, the corporations paid the lion's share of federal taxes.
Now, Google and the rest of the capitalists do all they can to minimize even the measly 28-percent they pay in the USA by moving operations and headquarters offshore.
Remember Bain Capital?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021028651
Nothing silly about that.
Panasonic
(2,921 posts)and levy over 90% of the profits and 105% future profits until they cut it out.
Google once said: Don't be evil. Looks like they abandoned that philosophy.
NickP
(50 posts)Unless American's make a big stink about it.
primavera
(5,191 posts)It sounds so much more respectable than "tax evasion," despite being exactly the same thing, doesn't it?
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)If people don't wise up and the greedy come to some kind of sense of community, the US will be worse off than the EU.
It puzzles me how the 1% and RW zealots can claim to be concerned about the future for their children and grandchildren when they are working overtime to ensure that their off-spring are hated and despised by the 99% and will have to spend the rest of their idle lives looking over their shoulder behind gated enclaves and always living in fear that those "others" will be ever trying to tear down those compound walls.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)prohibits tax on Greek Shipping magnates and their profits plus
no capital gains on Greek stock exchange.
When you give the super rich a pass on taxes then the middle class will do everything they can to cheat.
This is one reason why it is so important that in the US the top 2% pay more, even if it didn't mean substantially increased revenues:
a lack of overall fairness undermines the civic response of ordinary citizens to do the right thing.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)
They're building a world where they and their children are worshipped and the rest of us are killed if we question it or don't tithe appropriately to them.
The question now is simply, "will they win?"
Amonester
(11,541 posts)okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)'avoidance' is legal, 'evasion' is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_noncompliance#Difference_between_avoidance_and_evasion
primavera
(5,191 posts)But, since our tax laws are mostly written by tax evaders who want to be able to get away with tax evasion, I'm not hugely impressed by the substantive difference between the two.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)Google on the other hand and alot of other companies and people who are rich tend to exploit loopholes in current laws to avoid paying the taxes and its usually perfectly legal. Its a despicable act to do it though imo.
Igel
(35,300 posts)I put money in an IRA. My employer also has, for now, a flex account for health care expenses.
By putting money in the IRA, I avoid paying taxes on it now. Instead, when I need it in 20 years, assuming that inflation doesn't chew it up, I'll pay taxes on the money. My income will be less so my taxes, presumably, will be less.
The flex account allows me to deposit pre-tax dollars into a health-spending account. Then it goes seamlessly to pay for things that my insurance won't cover. Without my paying taxes on it. I avoid paying taxes on the money I would spend for health care.
Both are legal. There's no evading taxes owed. The law says these are perfectly fine ways to manage money and limit the tax liability. That's tax avoidance.
Tax evasion is doing things under the table. So the guy who did my yard for the summer strongly preferred to be paid in cash. If he's paid in cash, then he can avoid reporting the money to the IRS. If he doesn't report it to the IRS, he's probably not going to pay taxes on it. That's evading taxes owed on income and illegally not paying FICA, etc. That's tax evasion.
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,501 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)They still post it in various places as a "philosophy", but they ceased using it as a public motto in 2009 when they did a PR retooling. They didn't replace it, but simply stopped using an "official motto" altogether. It was never all that official to begin with, but you won't find it on any corporate documents anywhere today. It's only used in a handful of PR-type "why we're great" publications.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Capitalism has never been "genteel". But there was a time when businesses recognized the inherent benefits they got from operating in a regulated economy. Society generally gave the owners "limited liability" which means that the liability of individuals investing in the business were limited to the extent of their investment (i.e. they could loose it all) but were not personally responsible. There was a time during which companies recognized the value of the protection of their IP. There was a time during which companies recognized the value of anti-trust regulation which helped new entrants in a market. There was a time when companies recognized the value they got from what the public provided - educated workforce, roads, bridges, etc.
But no more....they want more and more and think it should be all for free. It is as if the population should bow down to the corporate masters and be thankful for the jobs they offer.
Screw them.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)moondust
(19,981 posts)Same thing governors face competing against each other to offer the biggest incentives for bringing jobs to their states (see: Rick Snyder/RTW). At least Schmidt isn't trying to hide his motives.
Race to the bottom sucks.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)elleng
(130,895 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Seems like a silly reason to me. Just curious which corporation did you chose to go with for your homepage?
Cause despite the fact they evade taxes like every other corporation they also do a whole of good unlike many other corporations. Check out http://www.google.com/giving/ some time.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)How's that for a corporation?
TruthTeller
(192 posts)Duck Duck GO [link:https://duckduckgo.com/| as an alternative to Google. I am just exploring it now.