Slashdot Mirror
Schmidt On Why Tax Avoidance is Good, Robot Workers, and Google Fiber
Bruce66423 writes "Eric Schmidt said that a £2.5 billion tax avoidance 'is called capitalism' and seems totally unrepentant. He added, 'I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate.' One must admit to being impressed by his honesty." Schmidt also says that if you want a job in the future you'll have to learn to "outrace the robots," and that Google Fiber is the most interesting project they have going.
How many people reading this intentionally pay more tax than they are strictly required to?
I can't fault anyone for taking advantage of legal loopholes.
If you want to blame someone go after the Sociopaths in Washington(TM) who created the U.S. tax code.
Please. Someone go after them.
Its not Capitalism, its "Mobile Capital"-ism. And governments need to adjust their tax structure very quickly! Otherwise national-level and smaller businesses will not be able to compete.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
I'm sure you could write a computer program to do a better job than 99% of CEOs... and think of all the money that will be saved on the obscene costs in have a human CEO.
Run Eric, Run. The robots are coming.
The more Schmidt speaks the less you can take the do no evil line seriously.
Why would it be a good thing for us to work really hard so we can keep jobs by outpacing robot workers?
The goal should be 0% involuntary employment.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The corporate tax rate should be on the order of 10% *but* with zero loopholes: Any profits from sales made in the U.S. get taxed regardless of where the company is based.
That would actually increase taxes on some major companies (but not to the stupid levels for the nominal tax rates that are in place now).
What we have now is a system where politicians can strut around talking about "taxing those evil corporations" while the corporations that pander to the politicians pay zero tax. Offender Number 1: General Electric that was paying zero taxes while Jeffrey Immelt was jetting around the world with Obama at taxpayer expense while the convenient liberals at MSNBC railed that Mitt Romney never paid taxes while conveniently never talking about their own corporate masters.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
First on tax avoidance: no one wants to pay taxes, but if everyone is taxed fairly, then this sort of nonsense resulting from favoritism in the tax code would not happen.
On the robot overlords commeth comment: Just about any halfway intelligent person can see that we're entering the phase of robot factories that produce products and that can repair themselves. Even factories producing robots.... These factories will take orders of magnitude fewer labor hours, and this movement will spread to other typically high labor industries, such as agriculture. Once those are converted, what then? A service economy can only employ so many, and food and basic foodstuff will wind up being almost free, other than energy costs (which could also be virtually free in this scenario) So what's left? Academia will only hold so many, and you only need so many managers/troubleshooters.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
That would be a very likely dystopia. Automation leading to mass unemployment, but without the foresight to shift society to a model able to operate under those conditions. The result being billions of people living in poverty because there is simply no work for them to do, while those who do control wealth have no incentive to share it freely. The only apparent solution is some sort of techno-socialism, but the S-word is considered obscene in US politics, so that isn't going to be easy.
This isn't just about deductions and credits though. Its about moving your money to subsidiaries in countries where no actual business is taking place and cooking the books in such a way that you practically avoid paying any tax at all on billions of dollars in profit.
Again. These companies are under no legal, moral or ethical constraint to assume the maximum tax burden possible.
They're under fiduciary constraints to maximize their shareholders' investments.
If you think that the current tax avoidance schemes are a Bad Thing, stop pissing and moaning at the companies who are simply doing what they're supposed to be doing and change the fucking laws.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
As long as the tax code is complex, it will favor those with the resources to exploit the complexity.
The fundamental problem is not that the tax code is complex (though I agree that is a problem) but rather that it is really, really difficult to define income in such a way that it closes all potential loopholes. It's even more difficult to do so in a way that is politically possible, especially considering the influence corporate concerns have with elected officials. I understand what you are saying but I'm actually a certified accountant and I can tell you that eliminating loopholes in the tax code is MUCH more difficult to achieve than most people realize.
My personal opinion is that we should eliminate the corporate tax rate, removing the shenanigans altogether. Make up for this by making dividends and capital gains taxable as income.
Umm, then companies will stop paying dividends and companies can avoid paying taxes by avoiding realizing capital gains. Both are fairly easy to accomplish. You also haven't considered the effects of national and state boundaries. A lot of tax avoidance strategies are based upon exploiting differences in tax codes in different countries, states and/or municipalities.
Restraint is not merely legal. Restraint is about your own internal compass. If you prove not to have one, I will hold that against you.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So if someone was standing on the street corner with a bag of money and they said "whosoever approaches while hopping on one foot gets $1000 cash", would you do it? Or would you say "someone else needs the money" and ignore him?
Should I not claim the mortgage interest deduction and the child tax credit? The original idea behind tax credits/deductions is for the government to encourage desirable behavior. You can't cry foul when you say "People who do X will get money!" and then people do X and take the money. If you don't want to give them money, stop providing the hoops to be jumped through. But then don't complain when they stop jumping.
This is not about corporations making full use of tax credits.
This is about corporations licensing "IP" e.g. the name "Google" from some company in the Bahamas for almost as much money as they make (before the licensing) in a country such as the UK. As a result they appear to make no UK profit (since they have to pay so much for the name "Google") and hence have to pay no tax.
Basically it's about moving all actual profit offshore before it's taxed.
It might be legal, but it is unethical and it looks like lawmakers are looking to fix that loophole.
And FYI, that is something it is possible to do as an individual. Most people don't and those that do are generally looked on as scum.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If interest rates (prices) were set on a free market with a hard currency it would be based on how much money people had saved (supply) and how much people wanted to borrow (demand). This works out nicely because any automation involves a large expenditure of money to increase productivity. If there is low unemployment and people have high wages and money saved it will lead to low interest rates. This causes businesses to want to invest in capital equipment because labor is expensive and money is cheap. On the other hand if you have high unemployment, low wages, and low savings you will have a high interest rate. This leads businesses to hire people because it's more profitable. This is a natural balance of sustainable automation.
What we have now is the Federal Reserve setting artificially low interest rates. This causes businesses to invest in automation at a time in which we have high unemployment, low wages, and low savings. This is exactly the wrong approach. It causes lots of malinvestment by automating production to increase capacity but nobody has enough money to buy these goods.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
That's a really good explanation of what's going on, so thanks, but I disagree with your conclusion.
Most people don't do this as an individual because most people don't make enough money for it to be worthwhile. But let me explain why I don't have any ill-will at all towards these companies: it's a global economy, and countries have to compete for businesses. If they U.S. can't offer a competitive tax structure (I personally favor a corporate tax rate of zero*), then the companies move. It's the free market at it's best, and it happens even between states in the U.S., and I completely support it.
* - Where do companies get their money to pay taxes? Hint: it's not growing on the trees that are growing outside their offices. Studies indicate that an average of 21% of the cost of all the goods and services you buy in the U.S. are simply embedded taxes that get passed up the line to the government. Most businesses get their money from one source: their customers.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Speaking out falls under the heading of "Lobby", so no, I wasn't attempting to discard or restrict your freedom of speech.
Yes, there is an implicit contract. You'll notice that the roads are drivable, the water drinkable, etc. The government (which, I remind you, is a collection of your fellow citizens, and is not in fact staffed by aliens or demons) is beholden to us. We elect them, and we can un-elect them. Is the system perfect? No, but no system is.
Is there some alternative political system you'd like to propose? If so, then please tell us all about it.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
I've never seen a good explanation for why a corporate entity should pay a lower tax rate than a personal entity when they both have essentially the same property rights. Sure, corporations aren't eligible for Medicare or Welfare but they receive subsidies and bailouts instead. Either get rid of all taxes or tax all taxable entities in accordance with their consumption of public goods. Corporations probably consume most of the federal budget spent on legislative actions and civil courts and judges, for instance. Most of the budget of the patent and trademark office and the copyright registrar. A significant portion of law enforcement investigates civil and criminal Copyright infringement for corporate entities. The roads are used significantly by transportation for corporate entities. Why shouldn't corporations have to pay for those obvious benefits of government?