3 ms·
>None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money... This is sloppy reasoning. Just because A contributed in s
by ataggart 16y ago
>None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money...
This is sloppy reasoning. Just because A contributed in some measure to B does not imply B could only have come about because of the contributions of A, nor does it imply that more of A will yield more Bs.
Further, absent a parallel world in which such different choices were made, one could just as easily argue on economic grounds that the resources confiscated would have been otherwise put to more effective, productive use in satisfying the wants of the common man.
- Anechoic 16y agoJust because A contributed in some measure to B does not imply B could only have come about because of the contributions of A, nor does it imply that more of A will yield more Bs. I'm not saying that at all. Google can offer the services that it does because it can ride on the back of the infrastructure developed beforehand and the taxes we pay now will enable future entrepreneurs to provide services utilizing potentially different infrastructure.
- notahacker 16y agoAlthough Sebastian's original post stopped just short of doing so, it would be equally sloppy to suggest that Google's ability to come up with amazing free (but profitable) services was a consequence of their tax avoidance.
- chc 16y agoOnly because calling it "tax avoidance" is overspecifying. Google's ability to come up with amazing free services without immediate profitability is a consequence of their considerable post-tax revenue.