Slashdot Mirror
Google Shifted $23 Billion To Tax Haven Bermuda in 2017, Filing Shows (reuters.com)
schwit1 shares a report: Google moved 19.9 billion euros ($22.7 billion) through a Dutch shell company to Bermuda in 2017, as part of an arrangement that allows it to reduce its foreign tax bill, according to documents filed at the Dutch Chamber of Commerce. The amount channeled through Google Netherlands Holdings BV was around 4 billion euros more than in 2016, the documents, filed on Dec. 21, showed. For more than a decade the arrangement has allowed Google owner Alphabet to enjoy an effective tax rate in the single digits on its non-U.S. profits, around a quarter the average tax rate in its overseas markets. The subsidiary in the Netherlands is used to shift revenue from royalties earned outside the United States to Google Ireland Holdings, an affiliate based in Bermuda, where companies pay no income tax.
This might be for nerds, but it ain't news.
So the tax cuts worked right? /s /s /slashdot
Make them set some priorities, starve the beasts.
Yay, corporate fraud is Presidential behavior! NOBEL! NOBEL! Google 2020, cheat those taxes and make Mexico pay for it!
What is 23 billion compared to 23 trillion? 0.1%. Why does it matter? It doesn't when government spending is this out of control.
guess that youthful idealism turned into middle-aged "I got mine, do no good"
Let google leave the US and put all there offices in Bermuda. Then they can let the Bermuda Army protect them from an invading Russia. See how they like their no taxes then. I'm sure the developed infrastructure will handle their massive number of employees as well as the Silicon Valley area.
For the avoidance of any doubt I do not condone arson, larceny or other illegal/antisocial actions.
That said, I would dearly love the following scenarios to play out:
A major fire to break out at an Amazon warehouse or Google office. When they call the (taxpayer funded) fire services they get told "oh we only operate the phones here - you'll have to source the water from Ireland, the crews from Luxembourg, the appliances from Bermuda... after all that's where you operate isn't it? You don't want to get involved with civil society - well provide your own protection through self funding then!"
Similarly for break-ins/vandalisation at Facebook's offices ... "here's a crime number for your insurers... we'll get back to you when we've dealt with incidents affecting those who do engage with civil society and contribute to the common good".
Or roadworks right outside the offices of Vodafone, Oracle, Microsoft - started and then de-prioritised to serve ordinary folk who pay their way - "yes, we'll get back to fixing your road in due course...".
After all disrupting these organisations wouldn't be a big loss because they don't pay much into society now anyway.
The "I'll keep whatever I can and get everyone else to cover externalities and emergencies" rejection of paying the same taxes as others do should come back to bite them when they discover they're neither all powerful nor an island sufficient unto themselves.
Now, whether the government provides good levels of service for the taxation raised is a separate debate; certainly there are many areas where it could do better. Enriching yourselves by demanding the same benefits as everyone whilst doing everything to avoid the common obligations is the behaviour of an antisocial bully.
"We are all citizens of the world" == we billionaires don't want to pay taxes, we take, despoil and subvert but never, ever, under any means, give back.
How nice that big companies can effectively cheat on taxes using dodgy accounting, and pass some of the loot along to C-levels and shareholders, while screwing everyone, the environment and the very economy we rely on to stay alive. Thanks Google.
Ignore chatter. Here is the end game: if they paid more taxes, this would not reduce borrowing one iota, as this would give politicians a few more billion to spend.
There is no "fair share" since that presumes some fixed level of spending. But spending is tied to what they can get away with to buy votes. It will always increase even as times get better and better.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
So I thought I'd look it up.
https://www.businessinsider.co...
I could have predicted it would be a lot more complicated than your post made it out to be. Step #1 in the misinformation playbook - strip all context from the discussion, and paint things in broad, simplistic - and inaccurate - terms.
Don't blame the company, blame the politicians who carve out these arcane exemptions to benefit their campaign contributors. If one company can use the exemption then it won't be long before others follow suit.
...change the tax laws in Bermuda, or any country that isn't the USA. Something called "they are their own country".
Are there still /. users today who remember the time when Google was created, with their famous "Don't be evil" catch phrase ? Remember when Google was seen by the entire /. community as basically the second coming of Christ, and anyone who dared even hint at anything remotely negative about this company was instantly dowmodded into this abyss ?
Remember those who predicted that this new, innovative, enthousiastic and idealistic enterprise would soon be corrupted by the gangrene of corporate filth, and how they were instanteniously scolded by hords of pitchfork-weilding rabid downmodders from Hell ?
I do.
Where are you today, Ô ancient Google apologists ? Why have you suddenly turned silent ?
Proving that they're progressive about your life and your money and the choices you should be allowed/denied. When it comes to what's good for Google, all that progressive dogma falls away and they might as well be a bank or a drug company or an oil driller. All that progressive dogma is just a show to trick the rubes. Hope none of you were gullible enough to take it seriously.
He found a gun under a public bench that was stolen from a police vehicle, and being an idiot he played with it, it fired, a ricochet hit off the ground and struck Steinle who died tragically. Saying "he shot her" is typical lying by GOP omission.
Also he was not arrested for violence or a serious crime, which he would be reported to ICE if he had been. That's the difference. A violent criminal he is not.
When Republicans lie, all you have to do is state the actual facts to show how dishonest and craven the faggots have allowed themselves to become, for politics.
Why does anyone care about this? Does anyone care? If so, why?
It is your duty to avoid all possible taxes, period.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
It's only the mega-rich corporations that can hire enough lawyers and B-school graduates to make this an effective strategy. The 100 employee business can't do this.
So, I am not sure what you mean....
And they de-monitized my $90/yr YouTube account. Sheesh.
Charles Vane and Jack Rackham at least they reinvested their booty back into the community. If companies want to keep billions in Bermuda then they have to sail that shit there.
Are you a real communist or do you just play one on TV?
Like it wasn't discussed when the don't be evil motto was removed...
We _Could_ just put a stop to this through legislation. Just don't let them do this accounting practice where they bill out of one entity and avoid taxes! Let them bill, but any revenue generated from within the US to US customers, or x% of products developed within the US must generate US income. There's several ways to do it, but there's no legal reason it couldn't be done.
The reasons are political.
The Democrats are too much of a wuss-bags to do it, and many of them have turned into Corporate shills. The rest of them are all concentrated on identity politics, and playing the race/sex/gay/harassment card whenever it serves them. Money? What? The few that actually care about this are few and far between.
The Republicans are so into their own Ayn Rand world that they don't even see the problem here!
Because people have this mistaken belief that taxing corporations means you're not taxing people, and so it somehow decreases the tax burden on people if you tax corporations.
Corporate profit is taxed. The remaining profit is then distributed to shareholders as distributions. If you increase corporate taxes, the shareholders get less money as distributions. If you decrease corporate taxes, the shareholders get more money as distributions. So a tax on corporate profit is the same a tax on shareholder distributions. Likewise, a tax on corporate revenue is the same as a tax on sales to customers or wages to employees.
The problem with tax enforcement comes about because corporations can exist in multiple locations simultaneously. This makes it trivial for them to shift money from one tax jurisdiction to another to evade taxes, and you end up playing a game of whack-a-mole. People can't do that - they can only exist in one country at a time, so can't shift money around as freely between countries. Once you realize the fallacy of the notion that taxing corporations is somehow "better" than taxing people, the solution is simple. Eliminate corporate taxes and convert them into taxes on shareholder distributions instead. If you're worried that the shareholders mostly reside in a different company from where the company is doing most of its sales, then just use sales and income taxes instead - that extracts money from the corporation at the point of sale or from employees working for the corporation in your country.
When you tax a financial transaction, it doesn't matter which side of the transaction you tax it. Whether you tax the giver or the recipient of the money, the net result is the same. The giver (be it a customer or corporation) gives x dollars. y% of it becomes tax revenue. The recipient (whether it be a corporation, shareholder, or employee) gets to keep x dollars minus y%.
Tell me, do you willingly pay more in taxes then you need to? Do you use every deduction you can to AVOID taxes. Use every write off? Give extra money at the end of the year to maximize the amount of money you keep?
Now tell me, you own Google stock and hear they are not using their own financial/tax/lawyers people to maximize profits. There would be a stock holder uprising. Why are we giving away money freely when we could do more to save it. And don't forget, most of us own this stock through a 401K or retirement account. Google is in a portfolio somewhere.
Oh us who are in the right, strike down the company that tries to earn the most they can, but don't take money from me. It's my money.
Disallow such actions, and tax them on their true holdings and earnings. If they resist, dissolve the corporation and jail the execs for 500 years each.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Two changes to the American tax code would stop most of this behavior.
1. Do not allow monies paid to wholly owned subsidiaries based in other countries to be claimed as expenses (e.g. Nike paying licensing fees to a subsidiary to use the Nike 'swoosh'). This is by far the most egregiously unfair provision of the US tax code.
2. Put a sharp time limit on allowable deferments for capital held overseas, possibly with a small rate that runs constantly or maybe a staged series of payments until they have paid the current corporate rate. You have to balance the legitimate needs of companies that hold monies overseas for operations or expansions with the legitimate requirement that American companies will pay their taxes.
NOTE: Neither of these things will EVER happen. WAY too many stock prices depend on current conditions to prop up their numbers for this to be messed with. Sorry.
No matter how smart you are in thinking you can close up the loopholes there are armies of accountants and lawyers who are WAAAY smarter and can figure out a way around it.
They're not smarter. In fact, a number of accountants I know (yes, yes, anectdote) aren't particularly bright at all.
But they are focused, and obsessed with money. Sometimes focus and obsession make up for a lot, particularly a lot of missing intelligence. Good for their clients I suppose, not so good for themselves, or the broader society.
I canâ(TM)t tell if youâ(TM)re a big statist or a rabid Libertarian.
It's easy to tell! I'll give you a general guide.
If they are advocating a course of action that hurts others, they are statists.
If they are telling everyone to leave someone alone, they are libertarians.
I'd say telling everyone to set fire to Google and Amazon properties falls pretty clearly in the "Fascist Statist" camp.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
dodging taxes makes them smart and patriotic
Yellow Vest protesters in France forced president Macron to speed up the introduction of the GAFA tax (hitting the tech goliaths Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon). The EU version of this tax was being opposed by Ireland, where a lot of tech giants operate.
The GAFA tax started 1 jan 2019 in France only, but other country's yellow vests activists will demand the same tax in their country.
how about instead we just elect politicians who aren't corrupt and who will close tax loopholes and shelters? It's not even hard, just make it a point to vote for candidates who refuse corporate PAC money.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Let he who doesn't try to reduce his tax bill cast the first stone.
7 years with the money we would save from Medicare for All. We could pay the rest of it in about 40 years, which would be in my kid's lifetime (not mine, I'm old :) ).
And we could do it faster if we'd stop meddling in other country's affairs for the sake of our mega corporations.
I keep on saying this, but vote, vote in your primary, and vote for candidates who refuse corporate PAC money. That's how you fix this.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Google are what are often called politely "New Democrats" and not so politely "Clinton Democrats". They're Progressive on Social Issues, meaning they don't mind gays, especially since gays tend to be higher income earners and thus good customers (or product in google's case, since they're basically an ad agency). When it comes to matters of money they're hard, hard right.
The American media is like this too. Folks talk about the "Liberal Media Bias" because the media pushes climate change, abortion rights and civil rights. But those are social issues. Watch them on economics. Watch the coverage on Medicare for All, for example. Watch Brett Hume try to get negative sound bites out of Alexandria Orcasio-Cortez for a half hour on MSNBC (the supposed left wing Fox News).
Corporations are in it for money. Always, always, always follow the money.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
More money for salaries, less for government.
The real reason for allowing culturally-incompatible mass migration isn't compassion, moral duty, investing in the future or fueling the 'melting pot': It's to make the economy sufficiently shitty that people complain about it. (See '1984'.) When the people are distracted, these shitty laws continue unchallenged.
It's time for President Trump to get out his trust-busting stick. Break up Alphabet!
Android - separate company
Chrome - separate company
YouTube - separate company
Gmail - separate company
Search - separate company
Advertising - separate company
Maps - separate company
Arrest Sundar Pichai. Shut down the dangerous mad science projects. Arrest the nazi mad scientists. Shut down the wannabe-Skynet AI. Arrest those mad scientists too.
Break up Alphabet now! Stop Google before it's too late!
If everybody would stop trying to game the system and just paid for there own shit there would be no problem with Google keeping its money. The problem is government is stealing from you, me, and Google to fund services that select companies and individuals benefit from. There may be some return, but from an investment stand point that return (what you and I ultimately get) is shit.
We should just end the redistribution of wealth programs. From copyright and IP law to welfare and government schools, police, and so on. Let each person pay for the products and services they require and contribute to the charities they so desire.
There was a time when when most Americans voluntarily contributed a sizable chunk to charitable organizations. This was before government got involved with forced redistribution of wealth. Most of the forced redistribution of wealth ultimately benefits private corporations. I should know because I have a corporation and personally benefit from government redistributing your money to my corporation and thus me (own 100% of shares). But I am not your average corporate owned citizen. I didn't go take that cozy corporate job after college. I went a different route and setup my own corporation and benefit from the fucked up system we have because I actually understand how it works. I have no problem surrendering the benefits I personally receive either (from taking advantage of it) if it means an end to the redistribution of wealth system (taxation). Despite getting $100,000 from the federal government this year the inefficiency in the system still results in me being better off if we end taxation. We will all benefit from an end to that system- particularly the little guy because it is so inefficient that most of the money that goes from your pocket to pay for the services via government you do receive is so utterly shit that you'd be wayyy better off just paying for them outright with the money that government no longer stole. Why anybody thinks that giving the government $10,000 a year in taxes for $1,000 worth of services if that is beyond me. * That isn't a real # as you probably are giving the government(s) something closer to $45,000-$85,000 in the US if you make $65,000-$120,000. And Europe can be much more: $58,000-$108,000 for equivalent earnings. People think that's not right because they don't understand the money taken from them PRIOR to the amount that is on there paycheck and via other hidden fees. So taxes and increase costs of goods due to government taking money from businesses. Everything from property taxes to higher taxes on commercial property and services (electricity, water, etc).
In the 80s we called 'em "limousine liberals".
Oh, you thought the high taxes, "fair share", "progressive" stuff applied to us, Google? Ah, no, lol, that's just for you.
Now shut up and pay us to install a surveillance device in your house. (Oh, and go shout at Ajit Pai some more, your two minutes hate isn't over yet.)
pepperidge farm remembers
Yes, I could pay around $250 less in tax a year, but choose not to.
An entity trying to rake in as much money as it can. What a shocker!
Or is it a shocker because all y'all commoners were bullshitted into thinking how everybody is or is supposed to be an angel/fairy when it comes to morality, and then every now and again you hear news such as this (don't worry, next month you'll read about amazon or whatever other company, football player, or politician) ?
You go and be moral, pay up. They'll take that money, and run to Bermuda with it. And be sure to teach your offsprings to give as much as they can too, so their kids can go to Bermuda as well.