Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt: Google Will Continue Investing In UK Even If Taxes Raised
DavidGilbert99 writes "Eric Schmidt hasn't changed his stance on Google's tax policies in the UK but has said that even if the tax legislation changes in the UK it will continue to invest in the country because 'we love the UK.' Gushing about its relationship with the UK, Schmidt said: 'Google will invest in the UK no matter what you guys do, because the UK is just too important for us. The citizens are too important for us and in our view we provide too much good.'"
(Beware the auto-playing video advertisements). This after writing an Op-Ed lamenting the complexity of international taxes.
So, google isn't going to throw a hissy fit and back out of a 2.5 trillion dollar economy. Say it ain't so!
Remember all this stuff is on taxes on profit! This is the stuff they get to keep after all expenses come out. So it's merely a question of pocketing a bit less of a vast amount of money.
Amazing they're not thinking of leaving, really.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If corporations are people then, as a person, I too have decided only to pay the amount of tax I see fit. Seriously, pay the full rate on income to the nation that income was earned in or GTFO. Same goes for Apple, Exxon, GE and the rest.
You know, in discussing things, people often discount possibilities that are considered to have an extremely low probability that are also irrelevant to the context of the conversation, so when the context is questions about Google response to potential tax increases in the UK, "Google will invest in the UK no matter what you guys do" doesn't, to a reasonable listener, equate to a commitment to staying engaged in the UK if the UK suddenly, rather than raising taxes that Google would have to pay, instead adopts Chinese-style massive political censorship that Google would have to actively cooperate with the authorities to enforce in order to be allowed to continue operating in the UK.
Google has no chance in China, because they're not Chinese.
Either via corruption through access to local govts, or outright protectionism from the national govt, Google will never get a far chance in China. Google has no incentive to keep up the nice, polite coating of public lies required to do business in PRC controlled territory. They just told the world how it really is, what it really is like to do business in China. (Which should be of no surprise to anyone who's had an even passing business relationship in China)
excuse me, but do you really think the 'market' is fair ? The invisible hand of the market is attached to a lunatic, wielding a large bloody axe.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Some people have what is called "Enlightened Self Interest". For that reason I do not lie when I say I am fine with paying taxes. I derive direct benefit from them. Not a month after I paid my property tax the county used that money to fix the roads I travel on to my home. I have no trouble paying for the civilization I enjoy.
You are projecting your short sighted greed onto others.
Why in gods name do you guys accept submissions from or linked to sites which play annoying ads? Yeah, I get it, most of /. users browse with adblockers of all sorts, but it is just horrible if you have to accept a submission and then add a disclaimer to it -- makes you guys look desperate.
Interestingly enough, I'm fine with income tax, but property tax bugs me to know end. It makes it feel like there's no way to ever completely "own" a house or a car.
Because then we would have freeloaders, like you.
Little to no benefit? So how is it that your posts are getting here again?
You do not drive? You do not have property to protect from fire or theft? You do not benefit from an orderly society? You gain nothing from an educated society?
I think you are a liar, since that is just the far simpler explanation.
Please read my ENTIRE post, I didn't say that.
Well, I did. The rest of the post seemed to be about how you thought taxes should work. That didn't seem to have any bearing on the first bit.
They also were promoting beyond govt funding needs, to basically redistribution to others that weren't as lucky or talented or hard working as the rest.
Some degree of redistribution is required. Some people are simply not capable of looking after themselves. If you don't basically hand money to them you'll have to hand more to the police (to catch them when they turn to crime) and more to the prison for when they get caught.
Either way you spend the money. The former makes more people happier and costs considerably less.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
1 and 3 are not the same thing at all.
2. is only partially billed directly. Much of public sanitation is clean streets and enforcement of dumping/sewage laws.
4 you cannot live without. You would likely already be dead or maimed without or have family in that situation.
In short, grow up kiddo.
What have the Romans ever done for us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
I agree.
A far simpler tax system is going to be killed by those who work in that field and those who take advantage of the current one.
My simple answer would be to exclude the first X of income from tax, let X equal the median income. Then tax the rest at some set rate. No deductions of any kind shape or form and all money in is income. The source matters not at all, a gift is income in the same way that found money would be or investments or a paycheck.
People very well were being killed by employers when we lacked any sort of regulation for working conditions. The Jungle was not about where you meat comes from.
Government can do a great job, this insistance that it can only do mediocre work is why it does mediocre work. People who elect those who say things like this are insane, would you hire a worker who stated your company could only do mediocre work? If you want to see an excellent job being done by government go to places where they expect that from government. They do pay more in taxes though.
Public road alternatives all suck. They end up being like the toll roads in Texas. Built with taxpayer money, sold to some politically connected jerk, and never repaired. Once the road is unusable the company that owns that single road folds and goes into bankruptcy leaving the government to again fix the road.
You've repeated the same thing!
If, on the other hand, you state that every problem you come across should be fixed with a government program, even if there are other options, then you most certainly are stating, in effect, "the government is better at spending your money than you are."
There is a whole continuum between limited, pre-defined services and fixing every problem.
Some problems are best solved by individuals and the free market. Other problems are best solved by the government because the whole system falls apart if individuals don't want to opt in (e.g. fire service, garbage collection and so on).
Likewise some other systems (education) are sufficiently important that even if parents don't want to pay to have educated kids, having an educated population is sufficiently important that the country cannot run without it and therefore it is best provided by the government.
Likewise, the free market and charitable donations will not solve large scale social problems. To a limited extent the government can, or at least mitigate them to the extent that significant amounts of the population do not need to be in gaol.
To repeat:
there is a continum between "government provides limited serivices" and "government is better at spending money so should solve all problems".
Your world, while appealingly simple, is just too simple to adequately reflect reality.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What he means is, "The UK can raise its tax rate all it wants. It makes no difference to Google, since we will structure our business deals so that they are not subject to UK tax anyway."
If Buffet wanted to pay more in taxes he could, he could declare his investment income as regular income or he could simply overpay every year. He doesn't because he doesn't really want to. He is smart enough to realize that taxing the income of the 1%er at 100% won't solve the spending issues in DC. He also knows that every time we raise taxes on "the wealthy" everybody gets included as well.
Warren Buffet also happens to have several lines of business that greatly benefit from the types of regulations he pushes.
Ex: He pushes for higher estate taxes
1. He owns businesses that sell life insurance policies, which are a tax shelter used in estate planning.
2. Some family businesses failed to plan ahead sufficiently for estate taxes, resulting in them being sold at bargain prices to pay the tax. Buffet has profited form the purchases of such companies.
http://grassrootsne.com/warren-buffett-crazy-like-a-fox/
Those facts, and the fact that he doesn't voluntarily pay more taxes, demonstrate that Buffet isn't really pushing for the general welfare; that's just the marketing for his self interest.