4 ms·

I'm pretty sure Google's lobbying is focused on issues such as Internet Regulation, Software patents, and antitrust. You'll need to provide some evidence that G

I'm pretty sure Google's lobbying is focused on issues such as Internet Regulation, Software patents, and antitrust. You'll need to provide some evidence that Google is lobbying for tax shelters. So you're "pretty sure" but we need to provide evidence. I have some evidence: Google (along with others) saves BILLIONS a year by these tax schemes so you can bet your last dollar they lobby for them. Don't expect CNN commercials but extremely well funded industry groups, or lobbyists contacting already bought senators and congressmen. It's a return on investment that George Soros can't even dream about. If Google paid 5% tax, imagine what a 35% or even 10% rate would have done to their earnings. In light of this, you need to provide proof they don't lobby to keep these tax loopholes :-)

beambot 13y ago
You've provided evidence of "motive", but failed to provide evidence of "crime". And you're accusing them of "crime".
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Please think before you write. Lobbying is legal, as it is the bread and butter of lawmakers. So I never accused them of anything illegal when it comes to tax loopholes.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    This is true, but I still don't see any evidence of actual money from Google being paid to lobbyists on behalf of protecting tax shelters.
    - bsullivan01 13y ago
      but I still don't see any evidence of actual money from Google being paid to lobbyists on behalf of protecting tax shelters. OK, how deep have you looked for evidence? Ah, I see. Once you pay off a congressman or senator you can ask them for anything.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Have to go with the obligatory... Burden of Proof: You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
  - beambot 13y ago
    I always think before I write. I used quotes because I'm borrowing an analogy from police investigations. You provided "motive", ie. "Google has a good reason to pay lobbyists for tax loopholes: money." But you did not provide evidence of said "crime", ie. "You have not shown direct evidence that they pay for lobbying for the purpose of tax loopholes -- rather, that they pay for lobbying (ostensibly for other purposes like net neutrality)."
- modfodder 13y ago
  And you provided the possibility of an "alibi" without actually corroborating said "alibi".
kalleboo 13y ago
They haven't saved money until they've spent it. They've deferred some taxes (not all, they're still charging things like VAT, and any taxes in countries where they have offices), but if they want to spend it on salaries or acquisitions, they have to repatriate it and pay taxes. They may be hoping for another "tax holiday". But putting foreign income in storage somewhere where it won't instantly incur taxes isn't really that crazy. Especially if they plan to later spend it in another foreign country (in which case in your dream would they'd tax it three times in three different countries)
gaadd33 13y ago
Have there been any laws introduced or even rumored to be introduced to change transfer pricing of assets among international corporations? From my research, there hasn't been so what exactly would they be lobbying for?

beambot 13y ago

You've provided evidence of "motive", but failed to provide evidence of "crime". And you're accusing them of "crime".

bsullivan01 13y ago
Please think before you write. Lobbying is legal, as it is the bread and butter of lawmakers. So I never accused them of anything illegal when it comes to tax loopholes.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  This is true, but I still don't see any evidence of actual money from Google being paid to lobbyists on behalf of protecting tax shelters.
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    but I still don't see any evidence of actual money from Google being paid to lobbyists on behalf of protecting tax shelters. OK, how deep have you looked for evidence? Ah, I see. Once you pay off a congressman or senator you can ask them for anything.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Have to go with the obligatory... Burden of Proof: You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
- beambot 13y ago
  I always think before I write. I used quotes because I'm borrowing an analogy from police investigations. You provided "motive", ie. "Google has a good reason to pay lobbyists for tax loopholes: money." But you did not provide evidence of said "crime", ie. "You have not shown direct evidence that they pay for lobbying for the purpose of tax loopholes -- rather, that they pay for lobbying (ostensibly for other purposes like net neutrality)."
modfodder 13y ago
And you provided the possibility of an "alibi" without actually corroborating said "alibi".

kalleboo 13y ago

They haven't saved money until they've spent it. They've deferred some taxes (not all, they're still charging things like VAT, and any taxes in countries where they have offices), but if they want to spend it on salaries or acquisitions, they have to repatriate it and pay taxes. They may be hoping for another "tax holiday". But putting foreign income in storage somewhere where it won't instantly incur taxes isn't really that crazy. Especially if they plan to later spend it in another foreign country (in which case in your dream would they'd tax it three times in three different countries)

gaadd33 13y ago

Have there been any laws introduced or even rumored to be introduced to change transfer pricing of assets among international corporations? From my research, there hasn't been so what exactly would they be lobbying for?