5 ms·

but it's equally a stretch to suggest that we're better off because Google pays less tax In absolutely no way is it a stretch to say that and I'm terribly surp

by tkahn6 16y ago

but it's equally a stretch to suggest that we're better off because Google pays less tax In absolutely no way is it a stretch to say that and I'm terribly surprised you have any upvotes. Are you aware of how many services Google provides for free that make my life (and probably yours) better? Google Search Google Maps Android Google Navigation (on Android) Google Patent Search Google Book Search (Working with libraries to digitize old books) Gmail Google Translate Google Code Google Summer of Code Thousands of tech talks made available online Google Docs Google Calendar and a lot more... One of the core tenets of capitalism is that the success an innovation of private companies benefits the public. This isn't true in all cases, but most certainly it is in the case of Google. sometimes multimillion sums are better spent on schools and hospitals Do I even need to cite a source that says throwing more money at the public school system won't stop them them being so shitty? That's a pretty common thing to hear now -- especially on HN, and I very much think it's true (from personal experience). And with hospitals, what exactly do you want more money for? More beds? More nurses? More money for the uninsured? Are you sure that will fix our nation's healthcare problem? I'm not an expert by any means whatsoever on this topic, but as far as I know, the quality of America's healthcare system, bad or good, is largely a function of governmental policy.

notahacker 16y ago
Which of the above services do you think wouldn't exist if Google avoided less tax? There's an opportunity cost of private companies paying less tax too - either someone else pays more tax which marginally decreases their ability to be productive and enterprising or something purportedly socially beneficial doesn't get paid for. Even coupled with inspired management, the profit motive doesn't ensure that an acquisition of say, Dodgeball for the price of a hospital wing, is an optimal use of resources.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  Which of the above services do you think wouldn't exist if Google avoided less tax? You're going to have to explain to me how this is relevant. What Google is doing is legal which means that you're trying to make this an argument about ethics. My point is that Google provides real value to millions of people around the world and has the resources, both human and monetary, to make real progress in many areas of technology which then benefit you and me. It benefits me more to have the money stay at Google than go to a failed school system or failing healthcare system.
  - bonaldi 16y ago
    By adopting the "Don't be evil" motto Google makes this about ethics. If you say that you are going to hold yourself to an ethical standard, that means you will be judged by your ethics, not by your adherence to the letter of the law. But really, the continuing argument that because you like Google Maps it's therefore better that Google gets to keep all of its tax euros out of the hands of underfunded public services is close to incoherent. Unless you can show that those services are in the same sort of existential danger as high-end cancer treatment is in the UK, the argument is specious.
    - tkahn6 16y ago
      But really, the continuing argument that because you like Google Maps it's therefore better that Google gets to keep all of its tax euros out of the hands of underfunded public services is close to incoherent. Unless you can show that those services are in the same sort of existential danger as high-end cancer treatment is in the UK, the argument is specious. a. I did not say that Google shouldn't pay any taxes. b. Whether you believe something to be 'underfunded' is a matter of perspective. c. Not funding cancer research is not equivalent to not doing good or creating value. I think you do have a point in that Google's slogan does make this about ethics. I still maintain that Google can do more good with more efficiency than any government.
      - bonaldi 16y ago
        I still maintain that Google can do more good with more efficiency than any government. That's fine, but there are plenty of other people who disagree with the assertion. If the money is in the hands of the government, at least those other voices get a say in how it is spent. The opportunity cost for anything you spend $3bn on is very high. A government could choose to spend it on cancer research or space ships. Google can really only spend it on a very narrow range of products -- and can't combine it with other serious numbers required to do the really heavy lifting, like that required to fix the disastrous public plumbing in the US. If Google paying its taxes would mean that it couldn't do all the stuff it currently is, that's one thing. But they've got $33bn sitting in the bank. They can more than afford to pay their taxes and continue creating Wave and AdWords.
- zacharypinter 16y ago
  On a similar note: I'd trust Google to put its profits to more effective use than any government.
- andreyf 16y ago
  Which of the above services do you think wouldn't exist if Google avoided less tax? Easy: how many of the above services are profitable? The more taxes Google is forced to pay, the less they can invest in experimental and long-term projects.
captain_obv 16y ago
"If you are not paying for it, you are the product".
- cvg 16y ago
  Who said this thoughtful quote?
joxenford 16y ago
To say any of these things have made anyones life better is quite a stretch. Has gmail improved your quality of life? Really? Choose your words carefully. Indoor plumbing and electricity made life better. Gmail has not. Your email was fine before Gmail. And Google should pay their F-ing taxes. I do.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  Has gmail improved your quality of life? Really? The ability to access my email from anywhere, organize, and quickly search through thousands and thousands of emails in seconds has improved my quality of life. Maybe not as much as indoor plumbing, but it has.
  - codexon 16y ago
    Your enthusiasm for gmail has blinded you to the reality. Sure it might be the best thing to you since sliced bread, but in every market estimate, gmail still trails behind hotmail and yahoo mail which means that for most people, gmail is not a radical improvement. http://www.quantcast.com/profile/trafficGraph?wunit=wd%3Acom.yahoo.mail&wunit1=wd:com.google.mail&wunit2=wd:com.live&drg=&dty=pp&gl=1yr&reachType=period&dtr=dm&width=522&country=UK&ggt=large&showDeleteButtons=true&v=9153602 http://www.quantcast.com/profile/trafficGraph?wunit=wd%3Acom... http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gmailvs-hotmailaol-chart.png http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gmailvs-hotm... Of course, since you are only a college freshman, I don't blame you for not knowing that there were dozens of serviceable webmail clients long before the existence of gmail.
    - anthuswilliams 16y ago
      What does his being a college freshman have to do with the argument? I call ad hominem.
      - codexon 16y ago
        It has everything to do with the argument. He thinks that Google invented or revolutionized webmail, maps, etc... when it is clear to anyone who's been on the internet for more than 8 years that they were only incremental updates.
jamii 16y ago
> Are you aware of how many services Google provides for free that make my life (and probably yours) better? Are you aware of how many services the NHS provides for free which make my life better, despite being cripplingly underfunded? I'm not saying that google are evil for avoiding taxes, bit neither am I convinced that I wouldn't be better off if the money made its way into my governments hands.
- blhack 16y ago
  I'm not. Could you list some, please?
  - olliesaunders 16y ago
    This is just for England but you should get the picture: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Pages/NHSServices.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Pages/NHSServi...
- trevelyan 16y ago
  You're not saying much of anything. Health care is good and killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad. Google doesn't have much to do with one or the other. Nor is the company responsible for the distributional choices British taxpayers make when they elect government officials who decide to underfund public health in favour of blowing stuff up. Why is this even a point under discussion?
alextgordon 16y ago
And with hospitals, what exactly do you want more money for? More beds? More nurses? More money for the uninsured? Are you sure that will fix our nation's healthcare problem? I'm not an expert by any means whatsoever on this topic, but as far as I know, the quality of America's healthcare system, bad or good, is largely a function of governmental policy. Just in case you hadn't noticed, the post you are replying to is about the NHS, which is not affected by US government policy.
ohyes 16y ago
"In absolutely no way is it a stretch to say that and I'm terribly surprised you have any upvotes. Are you aware of how many services Google provides for free that make my life (and probably yours) better?" Not free. All of those things are paid for by Ads. Google is a for-profit company making billions of dollars. There is nothing evil about doing legal things to pay less taxes (large public corporations are practically required to); but that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't fix the exploit. If i'm paying 30% taxes on my minimal salary, i think Google can cough up a bit more than 1% on its billions. (Billions which are made possible by government infrastructure, research, etc).

by tkahn6 16y ago

notahacker 16y ago

Which of the above services do you think wouldn't exist if Google avoided less tax? There's an opportunity cost of private companies paying less tax too - either someone else pays more tax which marginally decreases their ability to be productive and enterprising or something purportedly socially beneficial doesn't get paid for. Even coupled with inspired management, the profit motive doesn't ensure that an acquisition of say, Dodgeball for the price of a hospital wing, is an optimal use of resources.

tkahn6 16y ago
Which of the above services do you think wouldn't exist if Google avoided less tax? You're going to have to explain to me how this is relevant. What Google is doing is legal which means that you're trying to make this an argument about ethics. My point is that Google provides real value to millions of people around the world and has the resources, both human and monetary, to make real progress in many areas of technology which then benefit you and me. It benefits me more to have the money stay at Google than go to a failed school system or failing healthcare system.
- bonaldi 16y ago
  By adopting the "Don't be evil" motto Google makes this about ethics. If you say that you are going to hold yourself to an ethical standard, that means you will be judged by your ethics, not by your adherence to the letter of the law. But really, the continuing argument that because you like Google Maps it's therefore better that Google gets to keep all of its tax euros out of the hands of underfunded public services is close to incoherent. Unless you can show that those services are in the same sort of existential danger as high-end cancer treatment is in the UK, the argument is specious.
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    But really, the continuing argument that because you like Google Maps it's therefore better that Google gets to keep all of its tax euros out of the hands of underfunded public services is close to incoherent. Unless you can show that those services are in the same sort of existential danger as high-end cancer treatment is in the UK, the argument is specious. a. I did not say that Google shouldn't pay any taxes. b. Whether you believe something to be 'underfunded' is a matter of perspective. c. Not funding cancer research is not equivalent to not doing good or creating value. I think you do have a point in that Google's slogan does make this about ethics. I still maintain that Google can do more good with more efficiency than any government.
    - bonaldi 16y ago
      I still maintain that Google can do more good with more efficiency than any government. That's fine, but there are plenty of other people who disagree with the assertion. If the money is in the hands of the government, at least those other voices get a say in how it is spent. The opportunity cost for anything you spend $3bn on is very high. A government could choose to spend it on cancer research or space ships. Google can really only spend it on a very narrow range of products -- and can't combine it with other serious numbers required to do the really heavy lifting, like that required to fix the disastrous public plumbing in the US. If Google paying its taxes would mean that it couldn't do all the stuff it currently is, that's one thing. But they've got $33bn sitting in the bank. They can more than afford to pay their taxes and continue creating Wave and AdWords.
zacharypinter 16y ago
On a similar note: I'd trust Google to put its profits to more effective use than any government.
andreyf 16y ago
Which of the above services do you think wouldn't exist if Google avoided less tax? Easy: how many of the above services are profitable? The more taxes Google is forced to pay, the less they can invest in experimental and long-term projects.

captain_obv 16y ago

"If you are not paying for it, you are the product".

cvg 16y ago
Who said this thoughtful quote?

joxenford 16y ago

To say any of these things have made anyones life better is quite a stretch. Has gmail improved your quality of life? Really? Choose your words carefully. Indoor plumbing and electricity made life better. Gmail has not. Your email was fine before Gmail. And Google should pay their F-ing taxes. I do.

tkahn6 16y ago
Has gmail improved your quality of life? Really? The ability to access my email from anywhere, organize, and quickly search through thousands and thousands of emails in seconds has improved my quality of life. Maybe not as much as indoor plumbing, but it has.
- codexon 16y ago
  Your enthusiasm for gmail has blinded you to the reality. Sure it might be the best thing to you since sliced bread, but in every market estimate, gmail still trails behind hotmail and yahoo mail which means that for most people, gmail is not a radical improvement. http://www.quantcast.com/profile/trafficGraph?wunit=wd%3Acom.yahoo.mail&wunit1=wd:com.google.mail&wunit2=wd:com.live&drg=&dty=pp&gl=1yr&reachType=period&dtr=dm&width=522&country=UK&ggt=large&showDeleteButtons=true&v=9153602 http://www.quantcast.com/profile/trafficGraph?wunit=wd%3Acom... http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gmailvs-hotmailaol-chart.png http://tctechcrunch.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gmailvs-hotm... Of course, since you are only a college freshman, I don't blame you for not knowing that there were dozens of serviceable webmail clients long before the existence of gmail.
  - anthuswilliams 16y ago
    What does his being a college freshman have to do with the argument? I call ad hominem.
    - codexon 16y ago
      It has everything to do with the argument. He thinks that Google invented or revolutionized webmail, maps, etc... when it is clear to anyone who's been on the internet for more than 8 years that they were only incremental updates.

jamii 16y ago

> Are you aware of how many services Google provides for free that make my life (and probably yours) better? Are you aware of how many services the NHS provides for free which make my life better, despite being cripplingly underfunded? I'm not saying that google are evil for avoiding taxes, bit neither am I convinced that I wouldn't be better off if the money made its way into my governments hands.

blhack 16y ago
I'm not. Could you list some, please?
- olliesaunders 16y ago
  This is just for England but you should get the picture: http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Pages/NHSServices.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Pages/NHSServi...
trevelyan 16y ago
You're not saying much of anything. Health care is good and killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad. Google doesn't have much to do with one or the other. Nor is the company responsible for the distributional choices British taxpayers make when they elect government officials who decide to underfund public health in favour of blowing stuff up. Why is this even a point under discussion?

alextgordon 16y ago

And with hospitals, what exactly do you want more money for? More beds? More nurses? More money for the uninsured? Are you sure that will fix our nation's healthcare problem? I'm not an expert by any means whatsoever on this topic, but as far as I know, the quality of America's healthcare system, bad or good, is largely a function of governmental policy. Just in case you hadn't noticed, the post you are replying to is about the NHS, which is not affected by US government policy.

ohyes 16y ago

"In absolutely no way is it a stretch to say that and I'm terribly surprised you have any upvotes. Are you aware of how many services Google provides for free that make my life (and probably yours) better?" Not free. All of those things are paid for by Ads. Google is a for-profit company making billions of dollars. There is nothing evil about doing legal things to pay less taxes (large public corporations are practically required to); but that doesn't mean that the government shouldn't fix the exploit. If i'm paying 30% taxes on my minimal salary, i think Google can cough up a bit more than 1% on its billions. (Billions which are made possible by government infrastructure, research, etc).