4 ms·

When this loophole exists, it's tough to blame Google for not taking advantage of it. You may as well ask them to donate their profits to the federal government

When this loophole exists, it's tough to blame Google for not taking advantage of it. You may as well ask them to donate their profits to the federal government.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Consider that most of Google's political positions lean liberal, in subsidizing government services by raising taxes. For this same company to be participating in a scheme designed to deprive the government tax revenue, while advocating raising everyone's taxes to pay for things... Suffice to say, this is not a company "doing the right thing", as their code of conduct suggests they should. And bear in mind, this is not a loophole in our tax code, it is a loophole in international tax handling between multiple countries, and the primary result of this is that all of those billions get stashed in Bermuda instead of coming back to the US where it can enrich society.
- burke 9y ago
  Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible (really, to maximize shareholder value, which might even mean paying less tax than is legally possible, as long as the expected value of the gambit is positive). The issue is not corporations taking advantage of it, the issue is that we have a system where an actor is obligated to optimize for certain variables within the rules of a network of systems, but the network of systems is not coordinated in a way that prevents "abuse" as everyone would like to define it, but strictly speaking, haven't.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible That is a myth. Directors and officers have no such legal responsibility. Equity is a residual claim.
  - basseq 9y ago
    Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax, against which "doing the right thing" is not a legitimate defense. ("Right" in that statement having different moral and legal meanings.) Or, put another way, it would have been illegal for them to have paid that tax.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      I don't think I agree with that. There's no reason to suggest Google's current actions[1] (hiding billions of dollars in offshore accounts) maximizes shareholder value. They could, instead, either invest that money in ways that bring shareholders returns or even pay out dividends to shareholders directly. Both methods which would generate shareholder value and improve the US economy, which is also good for shareholders. Instead they're hoarding the money offshore in what looks like a figurative dragon in a cave hoarding shiny things. To my knowledge, hiding cash under your mattress has never been a wise investment strategy. [1] Note: Plenty of other companies do this too. Apple, Microsoft, etc. all have played tax games, even just in the tech industry. Though I find the level of disparity between Google's public statements about how it thinks things should be, and the statements of employees who seem to think they improve humanity by working there, and the actual realities of Google's business operations bordering on the comical.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax Directors have a responsibility to the corporation, they have no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. No shareholder would win a case against a corporation for 'paying too much tax' any more than they would win a case against a corporation for paying the directors or the CEO too much money. This myth needs to die already.
    - DerpyBaby123 9y ago
      >it would have been illegal [Citation needed]
  - ionised 9y ago
    > Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible They literally do not.
    - burke 9y ago
      I tried to find a source for this, but just ended up bewildered. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information on this. For example: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/s...
- rconti 9y ago
  This is stretching too hard to make a partisan argument. Other than the many [citation needed] statements, the reality is every company's interests involve providing some government services through taxes. Therefore it's just a matter of degree. You are either okay with companies avoiding paying taxes they do not legally have to pay, or you are not; it doesn't matter if it's an oil company or a tech company or a car company. I think those who argue that google and other companies should "do the right thing" are a bit naive; these companies operate under vastly complicated taxation schemes and while at the extreme end it might be somewhat obvious to us that it's not really on the up-and-up, it's extremely difficult to decide which revenues should be recognized in which locales.
acover 9y ago
Do you blame people for legally scamming the elderly? That it is legal does not make it good.
- Trundle 9y ago
  Scamming the elderly is punching down.
- gowld 9y ago
  Are the elderly entitled to extra protection against scams? Why?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - musage 9y ago
    Are sociopaths entitled to not be judged by their non-sociopath peers? Why?
  - acover 9y ago
    It's not about protection. I have no power over the scammer. I do not have to treat them well as they have chosen to be selfish. I can look down on them.
jgalt212 9y ago
They should not be taking advantage of one of their largest customers and benefactors (weak anti-trust enforcement).
Gustomaximus 9y ago
So its OK for Google to pay women less because they can. Or for for a politician to filter money into their wifes business because they can and its a grey area of the law. Honestly, I cant understand all these comments essentially saying if you can get away with things you should do it. From the standards I was brought up with it seems there is a serious lack of moral compass in the world.

When this loophole exists, it's tough to blame Google for not taking advantage of it. You may as well ask them to donate their profits to the federal government.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Consider that most of Google's political positions lean liberal, in subsidizing government services by raising taxes. For this same company to be participating in a scheme designed to deprive the government tax revenue, while advocating raising everyone's taxes to pay for things... Suffice to say, this is not a company "doing the right thing", as their code of conduct suggests they should. And bear in mind, this is not a loophole in our tax code, it is a loophole in international tax handling between multiple countries, and the primary result of this is that all of those billions get stashed in Bermuda instead of coming back to the US where it can enrich society.

burke 9y ago
Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible (really, to maximize shareholder value, which might even mean paying less tax than is legally possible, as long as the expected value of the gambit is positive). The issue is not corporations taking advantage of it, the issue is that we have a system where an actor is obligated to optimize for certain variables within the rules of a network of systems, but the network of systems is not coordinated in a way that prevents "abuse" as everyone would like to define it, but strictly speaking, haven't.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible That is a myth. Directors and officers have no such legal responsibility. Equity is a residual claim.
- basseq 9y ago
  Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax, against which "doing the right thing" is not a legitimate defense. ("Right" in that statement having different moral and legal meanings.) Or, put another way, it would have been illegal for them to have paid that tax.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    I don't think I agree with that. There's no reason to suggest Google's current actions[1] (hiding billions of dollars in offshore accounts) maximizes shareholder value. They could, instead, either invest that money in ways that bring shareholders returns or even pay out dividends to shareholders directly. Both methods which would generate shareholder value and improve the US economy, which is also good for shareholders. Instead they're hoarding the money offshore in what looks like a figurative dragon in a cave hoarding shiny things. To my knowledge, hiding cash under your mattress has never been a wise investment strategy. [1] Note: Plenty of other companies do this too. Apple, Microsoft, etc. all have played tax games, even just in the tech industry. Though I find the level of disparity between Google's public statements about how it thinks things should be, and the statements of employees who seem to think they improve humanity by working there, and the actual realities of Google's business operations bordering on the comical.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax Directors have a responsibility to the corporation, they have no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. No shareholder would win a case against a corporation for 'paying too much tax' any more than they would win a case against a corporation for paying the directors or the CEO too much money. This myth needs to die already.
  - DerpyBaby123 9y ago
    >it would have been illegal [Citation needed]
- ionised 9y ago
  > Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible They literally do not.
  - burke 9y ago
    I tried to find a source for this, but just ended up bewildered. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information on this. For example: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/ https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/s...
rconti 9y ago
This is stretching too hard to make a partisan argument. Other than the many [citation needed] statements, the reality is every company's interests involve providing some government services through taxes. Therefore it's just a matter of degree. You are either okay with companies avoiding paying taxes they do not legally have to pay, or you are not; it doesn't matter if it's an oil company or a tech company or a car company. I think those who argue that google and other companies should "do the right thing" are a bit naive; these companies operate under vastly complicated taxation schemes and while at the extreme end it might be somewhat obvious to us that it's not really on the up-and-up, it's extremely difficult to decide which revenues should be recognized in which locales.

acover 9y ago

Do you blame people for legally scamming the elderly? That it is legal does not make it good.

Trundle 9y ago
Scamming the elderly is punching down.
gowld 9y ago
Are the elderly entitled to extra protection against scams? Why?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- musage 9y ago
  Are sociopaths entitled to not be judged by their non-sociopath peers? Why?
- acover 9y ago
  It's not about protection. I have no power over the scammer. I do not have to treat them well as they have chosen to be selfish. I can look down on them.

jgalt212 9y ago

They should not be taking advantage of one of their largest customers and benefactors (weak anti-trust enforcement).

Gustomaximus 9y ago

So its OK for Google to pay women less because they can. Or for for a politician to filter money into their wifes business because they can and its a grey area of the law. Honestly, I cant understand all these comments essentially saying if you can get away with things you should do it. From the standards I was brought up with it seems there is a serious lack of moral compass in the world.