5 ms·
I fail to see what Google has done wrong. Why wouldn't they place their European headquarters in a EU country with the lowest corporate taxes rates? Also, how d
by jmaygarden 17y ago
I fail to see what Google has done wrong. Why wouldn't they place their European headquarters in a EU country with the lowest corporate taxes rates? Also, how does the UK have any more right to complain than France or Cyprus? This is just political grand-standing!
- ronnier 17y agoThey've done nothing wrong. But what they have done is promote and campaign for politicians who advocate higher taxes, then turn around and do everything possible to avoid such taxes. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122446734650049199.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122446734650049199.html (Google CEO Eric Schmidt will hit the campaign trail this week on behalf of Barack Obama) http://gawker.com/5119039/google-execs-pay-150000-for-obama-bash http://gawker.com/5119039/google-execs-pay-150000-for-obama-... (Google Execs Pay $150,000 for Obama Bash)
- MikeCapone 17y agoI don't think taxes were the only issue for Eric Schmidt/Google.
- cma 17y agoOnly hypocritical if you don't understand what a tax is. Obama didn't go out and advocate that individual corporations voluntarily pay more in taxes. All that would do is make the companies that voluntarily did it disappear from the marketplace as they get outcompeted. He advocated that to solve a collective action problem, a majority dictates (with teeth) that all parties pay more taxes. Presumably Google could be in favor of Britain fixing the loop-hole (if it really is one) it it affects their competitors as well as them, but they aren't going to voluntarily stop using. It is like saying someone who advocates that we all quit ironing our pants in order to save energy, but in the meantime keeps ironing theirs, is a hypocrite. That isn't true, and it is a misunderstanding of what they advocated.
- dantheman 17y agoThe ironing example is being a hypocrite. One should lead by example, if they really care about saving energy they will change their behavior to save it.
- cma 17y agoNope, it is a collective action problem. There is a simple game theory payoff matrix: (units: e=energy_savings, ss=social_standing) One guy's payoffs: one guy iron | no iron everyone iron 0ss - 0.1e = (-0.1) | -1ss + 0e = (-1.0) no iron 1ss - 0.1e = ( 0.9) | 0ss + 0e = ( 0.0) Society's payoffs (1000 people): one guy iron | no iron everyone iron 0ss - 100e = (-100.0) | 0ss - 99.9e = (-99.9) no iron 0ss - 0.1e = ( -0.1) | 0ss - 0.0e = ( 0.0) Ironing his clothes gives the person no greater benefit than not ironing their clothes--so long as no one else irons their clothes either. It isn't hypocritical to point this out and still iron your clothes.
- dantheman 17y agoI understand that that it's a collective action problem, but game theory only applies if things stay constant. By practicing what he preaches, and taking the hit to ss he shows that it is important, and he can use that to convince others to do it. As more people do it, the loss of ss per person goes down, and it might even invert (lose ss for ironing).