If it is pure lying and cheating, as you say, it is no longer tax avoidance, but tax evasion, which is (and ought to be) a crime. Tax avoidance (as the term is generally used) refers to structuring your business and other dealings so as to minimize the amount of taxes that are owed. There are circumstances where a company can claim both high earnings to their investors and losses on their tax filings because of the way that the tax law is written. In most cases, this is evidence of badly written tax laws, not of criminal behavior on the part of the business.
If laws can be applied retroactively, they are not laws. When you apply laws retroactively, you are saying, "Yesterday, when you did that it was legal, but today we made it illegal, so we are going to punish you." Any time "laws" can be applied retroactively it means that "laws" will be written in order to punish individuals and companies for supporting the "wrong" political party.
Any law which can be changed retroactively is not a law, it is an edict. And no, I do not wish to restate my statement, the U.S. has ceased to be a country of laws. It is a country that is ruled by edict. If what I do today is legal by the laws of today, but the laws can be changed tomorrow so that I can be punished for what I did today (that was legal today) than the country in which that happens does not actually have laws.
You are apparently unaware that most versions of the Flat Tax propose that there be a single deduction for each taxpayer that would be set at some level based on the Poverty Line. So, one could calculate how much it costs to provide the "necessities" and set the deductions some amount above that, thus making it so that people do not pay taxes on necessities. This would be a fair tax and would in all probability result in the wealthy paying more than they do now, since there would be no additional deductions for them to use to reduce their taxable income so that they do not actually owe that high marginal tax rate that everyone is so anxious to see passed.
You can say that it "unfair". You can say anything you like, but that does not make it so. However, when a company is taking advantage of a perfectly legal tax minimization plan, it is not fair to blame the company. The people you should be blaming are the people who wrote the law that makes it legal and the people who have the power to change the law so that it is no longer legal. One thing to keep in mind is that these deductions may exist because they produce other benefits for the country that more than offset the "lost" revenue that comes from companies taking advantage of them (the word "lost" is in quotes because sometimes the only reason a company is doing business in a particular location is because of the tax deductions they receive for doing so).
Then your problem is with the members of parliament who wrote the tax laws that allow Google to do this, not with Google for taking advantage of those laws.
When the government sets a rate of 21% corporation tax, it's pretty clear that the government intends that companies pay 21% corporation tax on their revenues.
When the government passes a law allowing companies to deduct some expense from their profits before calculating their taxes it is pretty clear that the government does not intend for the company to pay taxes on that money. If the government truly intended for companies to pay 21% tax on their revenues they would not have written deductions into the tax law for companies to take. They would have just written the law saying that companies need to pay 21% of their revenues in taxes. However, since that is not what the law has been written to say, it is pretty clear that the government did not intend for companies to pay that much. What is clear is that the government intended for you to think that companies pay 21% of their revenue in taxes.
If Google followed the law in the deductions they took, the taxes are not owed and cannot be legitimately collected retroactively (and if it can be done "legally" in your country than you do not actually have laws, just government edicts).
I also used to work freelance and yes, deducted reasonable expenses. I did not claim for stuff that wasn't directly related to my work so no, not really a hypocrite.
So, you did not claim things you could have gotten away with claiming, but which it was not technically legal for you to claim. However, you did claim everything it was legal for you to claim (that you were aware of), but you are complaining because Google did the same thing. That makes you a hypocrite.
No, individualistic is saying that I can better determine the best way to make use of my money to address the problems that I think are important than some bureaucrat.
By deifying freedom of the individual to do as they wish above everything else, you are simply ensuring that those in power continue to do what they want while living like parasites on the body of society as a whole.
Whereas you apparently think that you can somehow limit the ability of those in power to do what they want while living like parasites on the body of society as a whole by giving them more power. That seems counter-intuitive to me.
If all multi-national companies in the UK paid the tax they are supposed to*...
What you mean by that is that they should not take the deductions that the UK government has written into its tax code. It seems perfectly fair to me for a company to take advantage of every tax deduction it is legally eligible for. Now whether or not those deductions should exist is another question entirely, but the people to hold responsible for that are the members of Parliament who voted for those deductions in the first place (or failed to vote to eliminate them).
So, you are going to throw someone in jail because they were driving and their reactions are not up to the minimum you have decided is necessary for the task? And let go on driving the person whose reactions are significantly impaired because even so they are above that which you have decided is necessary?
The problem with both of those is that part of driving well is learning how good your reactions are and driving accordingly. So, the person you have decided does not meet the minimum requirements might be perfectly safe (although annoying to more skilled drivers) because they drive within their reaction times. On the other hand the person you have decided is not too impaired might be an extreme danger to others because they are driving according to their unimpaired abilities.
The summary (and I am going to bet the article as well) makes a faulty assumption. It assumes that there is a way to measure some substance related to marijuana that correlates to level of impairment in the same way that blood alcohol level correlates to impairment with regards to alcohol consumption. There is at this time no evidence that such a substance exists.. Of course as an anonymous coward points out elsewhere in this thread there is a second faulty assumption in this article. That assumption is that someone who has THC in their system but is no longer high is no longer impaired (although it is possible that some of the tests I have seen on impairment from marijuana actually addressed this and I just did not look close enough).
Diversity means different viewpoints, different perspectives, different approaches. Diverse speakers will appeal to and engage a more diverse audience. Diversity is more interesting.
Well, yes, but that is not the type of diversity we are talking about here. The type of diversity they are talking about in this story is that the speakers look different from each other in particular defined ways (primarily having to do with the amount of melatonin in the skin, although there are a few other physical characteristics being considered as well). The diversity in question has nothing to do with differing viewpoints, perspectives and approaches, as a matter of fact those who talk about diversity in the manner described in the article usually discourage such things.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is pure lying and cheating, as you say, it is no longer tax avoidance, but tax evasion, which is (and ought to be) a crime. Tax avoidance (as the term is generally used) refers to structuring your business and other dealings so as to minimize the amount of taxes that are owed. There are circumstances where a company can claim both high earnings to their investors and losses on their tax filings because of the way that the tax law is written. In most cases, this is evidence of badly written tax laws, not of criminal behavior on the part of the business.
How often do you intend to tax assets?
If laws can be applied retroactively, they are not laws. When you apply laws retroactively, you are saying, "Yesterday, when you did that it was legal, but today we made it illegal, so we are going to punish you." Any time "laws" can be applied retroactively it means that "laws" will be written in order to punish individuals and companies for supporting the "wrong" political party.
Any law which can be changed retroactively is not a law, it is an edict. And no, I do not wish to restate my statement, the U.S. has ceased to be a country of laws. It is a country that is ruled by edict. If what I do today is legal by the laws of today, but the laws can be changed tomorrow so that I can be punished for what I did today (that was legal today) than the country in which that happens does not actually have laws.
You are apparently unaware that most versions of the Flat Tax propose that there be a single deduction for each taxpayer that would be set at some level based on the Poverty Line. So, one could calculate how much it costs to provide the "necessities" and set the deductions some amount above that, thus making it so that people do not pay taxes on necessities. This would be a fair tax and would in all probability result in the wealthy paying more than they do now, since there would be no additional deductions for them to use to reduce their taxable income so that they do not actually owe that high marginal tax rate that everyone is so anxious to see passed.
You can say that it "unfair". You can say anything you like, but that does not make it so. However, when a company is taking advantage of a perfectly legal tax minimization plan, it is not fair to blame the company. The people you should be blaming are the people who wrote the law that makes it legal and the people who have the power to change the law so that it is no longer legal. One thing to keep in mind is that these deductions may exist because they produce other benefits for the country that more than offset the "lost" revenue that comes from companies taking advantage of them (the word "lost" is in quotes because sometimes the only reason a company is doing business in a particular location is because of the tax deductions they receive for doing so).
Apparently you do not realize that Google could probably make most of that 1 billion even if they did not have a physical presence in Australia.
That's because very few individuals can take advantage of nearly as many loopholes written into the tax laws as big corporations can.
Then your problem is with the members of parliament who wrote the tax laws that allow Google to do this, not with Google for taking advantage of those laws.
For the record, I believe that tax avoidance is at least morally wrong,...
So, I take it that you do not take any deductions when you file your taxes?
When the government sets a rate of 21% corporation tax, it's pretty clear that the government intends that companies pay 21% corporation tax on their revenues.
When the government passes a law allowing companies to deduct some expense from their profits before calculating their taxes it is pretty clear that the government does not intend for the company to pay taxes on that money. If the government truly intended for companies to pay 21% tax on their revenues they would not have written deductions into the tax law for companies to take. They would have just written the law saying that companies need to pay 21% of their revenues in taxes. However, since that is not what the law has been written to say, it is pretty clear that the government did not intend for companies to pay that much. What is clear is that the government intended for you to think that companies pay 21% of their revenue in taxes.
If Google followed the law in the deductions they took, the taxes are not owed and cannot be legitimately collected retroactively (and if it can be done "legally" in your country than you do not actually have laws, just government edicts).
So, I take it you are in favor of the Flat Tax?
I also used to work freelance and yes, deducted reasonable expenses. I did not claim for stuff that wasn't directly related to my work so no, not really a hypocrite.
So, you did not claim things you could have gotten away with claiming, but which it was not technically legal for you to claim. However, you did claim everything it was legal for you to claim (that you were aware of), but you are complaining because Google did the same thing. That makes you a hypocrite.
By deifying freedom of the individual to do as they wish above everything else, you are simply ensuring that those in power continue to do what they want while living like parasites on the body of society as a whole.
Whereas you apparently think that you can somehow limit the ability of those in power to do what they want while living like parasites on the body of society as a whole by giving them more power. That seems counter-intuitive to me.
So, do you not take the deductions you are eligible for? Or are you a hypocrite?
If all multi-national companies in the UK paid the tax they are supposed to*...
What you mean by that is that they should not take the deductions that the UK government has written into its tax code. It seems perfectly fair to me for a company to take advantage of every tax deduction it is legally eligible for. Now whether or not those deductions should exist is another question entirely, but the people to hold responsible for that are the members of Parliament who voted for those deductions in the first place (or failed to vote to eliminate them).
Well, here is what the NYT has to say http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/opinion/no-model-for-muslim-democracy.html , not that they are the most reliable of sources.
Have you seen what has been going on in Indonesia lately?
Especially since most people won't be able to afford cars once the new standards go into effect.
So, you are going to throw someone in jail because they were driving and their reactions are not up to the minimum you have decided is necessary for the task? And let go on driving the person whose reactions are significantly impaired because even so they are above that which you have decided is necessary?
The problem with both of those is that part of driving well is learning how good your reactions are and driving accordingly. So, the person you have decided does not meet the minimum requirements might be perfectly safe (although annoying to more skilled drivers) because they drive within their reaction times. On the other hand the person you have decided is not too impaired might be an extreme danger to others because they are driving according to their unimpaired abilities.
The summary (and I am going to bet the article as well) makes a faulty assumption. It assumes that there is a way to measure some substance related to marijuana that correlates to level of impairment in the same way that blood alcohol level correlates to impairment with regards to alcohol consumption. There is at this time no evidence that such a substance exists.. Of course as an anonymous coward points out elsewhere in this thread there is a second faulty assumption in this article. That assumption is that someone who has THC in their system but is no longer high is no longer impaired (although it is possible that some of the tests I have seen on impairment from marijuana actually addressed this and I just did not look close enough).
How can you tell if the person is under the influence of something or if they are merely a statistical exception to the norms?
Diversity means different viewpoints, different perspectives, different approaches. Diverse speakers will appeal to and engage a more diverse audience. Diversity is more interesting.
Well, yes, but that is not the type of diversity we are talking about here. The type of diversity they are talking about in this story is that the speakers look different from each other in particular defined ways (primarily having to do with the amount of melatonin in the skin, although there are a few other physical characteristics being considered as well). The diversity in question has nothing to do with differing viewpoints, perspectives and approaches, as a matter of fact those who talk about diversity in the manner described in the article usually discourage such things.
Translation, "I thought nobody would notice."
The answer to your question is, a state called Israel that is controlled by Muslims.