4 ms·
We can argue what is legal or illegal, and whether something that is legal should be illegal etc for ages. The fact is that they pay 2% tax while most US based
by borism 16y ago
We can argue what is legal or illegal, and whether something that is legal should be illegal etc for ages.
The fact is that they pay 2% tax while most US based persons pay at least 10x that rate.
- Matt_Cutts 16y agoActually, if you go read the longer version of the article at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho... you'll find that Google's overall effective tax rate was 22.2 percent last year. The BusinessWeek version of the article is radically shorter and suffered for those edits, in my opinion.
- borism 16y agoOK, let's make it clear once and for all: 22.2% - overall effective tax rate in US in 2009 (compared to 27.8% in 2008) 2.4% - average overseas tax rate 2007-2009 (that's what they pay to the Rest of the World, where they earn 88% of profit)
- RickHull 16y ago> The fact is that they pay 2% tax while most US based persons pay at least 10x that rate. And this is Google's fault? If you don't like the outcomes that result from players playing by the rules, perhaps you should direct your ire toward the rulemakers rather than the players.
- borism 16y agoI don't think I suggested anywhere that it's Google's fault?
- RickHull 16y agoI got that implication from your response to cperciva, who was saying, in effect, that Google was acting neither unethically nor illegally. Pointing out the "unfairness" of their reported tax rate does not directly refute cperciva's comment, but it seemed to stand in opposition to it nonetheless. I inferred that you think Google is at fault, here.