Why bother tracking by individual? The tax is collected at time of purchase. There is no need to track beyond that. There would be no 1040ez anymore... get it?
So you determine how much to refund people based on... magic? If your annual filing requires income reports, you're going to have the same problems you have today: exemptions, donations, foreign taxes paid, income types, etc. And the person still needs to state how much they spent, meaning, receipts. Otherwise you're going to have everybody married filing separately with 1 person doing all the spending, and the other person making all the money to maximize the refund. Not to mention the black market will be HUGE. All you have to do to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever to Uncle Sam is by doing your shopping online, overseas.
As for discounts on bulk purchases, so what? Its absolutely irrelevant.
Just because you say so, its irrelevant to the small businesses that can't get started because they can't compete with the large companies that not only have higher revenues to play with, but have a lower tax burden as well, allowing them that few extra $$s to force their smaller competitors out? No, it doesn't work that way. It is relevant, and unworkable.
As for Amazon and collection of taxes... puhhleezz. They can keep some of their accounting department that would otherwise be laid off for the reduced complexity of the tax system.
When did I dispute Amazon's ability to afford the extra expense? The issue is that small businesses cannot.
A graduated system is still in play, just at the back end, after collection and stated income are known. I think I spelled that out quite clearly in my prior post.
Ok. Let me restate (and please read carefully this time):
Graduated systems that tax both income and consuming, is the closest you will ever get to "fair".
You set the sales tax rate flatly, and then settle the disproportional tax levy on the annual filing where you can have a simple, clean, discount rate based on reported income.
This is clean, simple, and inevitably fair. It is NOT perfect, but a hell of a lot better than the mess we've got right now.
Poorer folks will pay more in real terms over the course of the year, but they'll get a check back each year from the government to reimburse them. That check could include an inflation calculation, etc... to offset the initial outlay.
You can toy with the idea of setting up sales tax exempt items (such as food), but then you start to make the whole thing more complicated, and prone to manipulation.
I conduct my personal and professional life by the KISS model. I think our government can learn from it.
So, you think turning 100 million single income households filling out one 1040ez tax form into a monster that has to compile 1 year's worth of receipts on everything from their new car to the single pack of gum they bought at the fair, will reduce paperwork?
Amazon is fighting the requirement to collect sales tax for exactly that reason! Trying to keep track of the local sales tax rate in every city, county, and state in the country is a huge financial burden that only huge companies like Amazon can even fathom doing, and they know how stupid it is.
not to mention it is hardly "fair". Sales taxes predominately affect poor and small businesses. Large corporations buy everything in bulk and get large discounts for doing so. That means they will pay less in sales tax, and have a lower effective tax rate than individuals every time.
Graduated systems that tax both income and consuming, is the closest you will ever get to "fair".
but low teacher salaries are just the public education system trying to spin their atrocious performance the best way they can.
Really? So you think $30k is a respectable entry level wage for 5 years of schooling and certification?
Last I checked the companies that offered the lowest wages had the worst applicant pool to choose from.
Ignorant masses still trying to apply their own sense of how things should be to the entire planet.
Every Indian already knows this happened. Maybe not this specific incident, but they know that bribes change hands with EVERY decision the government makes. That is simply how things are done there.
Wrong. The US has both due process and a right to appeal. Comparing the situation in the US to that in Egypt is overgeneralizing in a way which is both incorrect and insultingly trivializing the troubles in those parts of the world that do not have US rights.
Tell that to Jose Padilla, Anwar Al-Awlaki, and every gay US Citizen waiting for their marriage certificate, equal taxation, and deployment orders.
While you're waiting for them to pickup the phone, take a look at 18 U.S.C. 981 (b)(2). No warrant needed.
It will be completely impossible for either hacked Ford computers, or any other Wifi device operated by somebody who knows hat "MAC spoofing" means, to present inaccurate, deceptive, or otherwise unhelpful information to these Ford vehicles. I, for one, take comfort in that.
FFS, dudes, trusting the client in a life-critical application? Srsly? Srsly?
Of course its safe. The FCC allocated a SECURE wifi channel for this.
You know, as an attorney, we're hired to defend vigorously the position of our clients or their interests. That doesn't necessarily mean we advocate for that position as private individuals, or that we are incapable of striking a fair position. The only thing that should matter as a nominee for a Solicitor General position is whether she can diligently represent the government's position, and that is all.
Ever wonder why so many lawyer jokes focus on their lack of morals?
No I didn't think so.
I encourage you to rent "Clerks". They have a wonderful debate about the morality of blowing up the unfinished death-star, which was no doubt packed with "innocent" independent contractors.
If you choose to work for the Evil Empire, then you are furthering their goals and deserve whatever the rebels give you.
If people start voting their principles, then third parties may only get 5% this year, but that makes it easier to get 6% next year. When people see it's rising, more people vote for it. Then you've got 7%, which encourages more people to vote. Then one year, you wake up and you've changed things.
It dominoes a lot faster than that. Ever wonder why you don't see the Libertarian & Green candidates in any debates? Because nobody hosting a debate is required to invite them. So, if they do, the D & R will simply refuse to show up (Why should they, it would only help the 3rd party). The laws that require each candidate to receive equal media exposure does not extend to non-viable candidates. To be considered viable, your party has to get 5% of the vote in the previous election.
Vote your heart now, whatever the party. Get your friends to do it too. Until you do, we'll always be stuck with the same two corrupt royal lines.
with a large sign saying "Please, help yourself to everything inside."
What part of the real situation does that correlate to?
A website, offered to the world with no access restrictions containing a web form specifically for the purpose of retrieving the exact information the "hacker" collected combined with a TOU document that does not prohibit such actions.
The federal prosecutor disagrees. If you follow the link in TFA, you'll find:
So its like he claims: "I wanted to point out your security failures, so I opened your safe". And the federal prosecutor says: "You actually opened the safe and took the money out". While the first is possibly illegal, but let's us argue that no harm was actually done, the second is pure and simply theft.
The only problem with your analogy is the lack of mention that the safe was on your front lawn, open, with a large sign saying "Please, help yourself to everything inside."
When you step in to help a woman getting raped, you're getting yourself and only yourself (well, aside from the criminal, obviously) in danger.
Wrong. I also put the victim in danger (civilians). I put my wife & kids in danger (other citizens of my country). I put any bystanders in danger (neighboring areas). The situation is the same, just on a different scale.
When a government does the same, it is doing so with other people's tax money risking the lives of other people in the conflict.
Wrong again. This government was formed of, by and for the people. We vote them in, its our money going to the system, its us in danger.
If some politicians want to help out, they should buy some weapons out of pocket and go in themselves.
If you don't want your politicians voting to go in, then vote them out. But, like the rest of the country, you won't. Because like the rest of the country the responsibility is "not yours". The Government is screwing up, not you. The "other side" is voting wrong, not YOUR representative.
2. The US is not the world police, nor should be. Somebody being a dictator isn't an automatic justification for invasion
Possibly. Then there is the analogy of watching a woman getting raped... I'm not the local police, but I'm going to step in. Doesn't that apply to larger situations as well?
Talk about false equivalency.
By that logic, that means we should go around and liberate all oppressed nations.
If you have the power to do good, but choose not to, what does that make you?
There's is one hell of a difference between stepping in and helping someone individually in trouble and putting thousands of soldiers in harms way along with billions and trillions of dollars for the sake of bringing our version of "freedom" with the barrel of a tank.
This isn't about our version of freedom. This is about a psychotic dictator on the path to joining a select group that currently includes the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. But hey, if you think a couple billion dollars is worth more than 600,000 people... ok, have fun.
We don't do ourselves or anyone else any favors by spending and bleeding ourselves into oblivion.
Ok, so because helping everybody will "spend us into oblivion", we shouldn't help anybody?
Pro tip: Read up on the history of Saddam's reign and who his puppet master was. Yes, that was Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. Saddam got to power and stayed in power because we needed a proxy to fight against Iran when they overthrew OUR duly appointed dictator the Shah. Those fools, how dare they rebuke US power. Then we gave him weapons, including chemical weapons to fight Iran. Countless lives lost and lots of destruction.
So we put people like the Shah, and Saddam, and Noriega in power to further our interests, and act all surprised when these unstable megalomaniacs think they're big enough to bite the hand that feeds or finally push their people to the point of revolt.
Our hands are far from clean.
Huh? Stay on topic. We're talking about the moral responsibility to remove a mass-murderer from power. If you somehow think the fact that you armed him absolves you of that duty, you're sick.
2. The US is not the world police, nor should be. Somebody being a dictator isn't an automatic justification for invasion
Possibly. Then there is the analogy of watching a woman getting raped... I'm not the local police, but I'm going to step in. Doesn't that apply to larger situations as well?
3. IMO, the right thing to do would have been to leave Saddam alone, and let the country have a revolution if the citizens decide to have one.
Well, see, they tried that several times. Each time it resulted in several thousand deaths. When one side has mustard gas, and the other side has AKs... who wins? google Chemical Ali if you need help there.
4. Regardless which one was the most evil, the Iraq war didn't result in anything positive, so starting it was a mistake.
How, exactly, are you measuring that? I'm just curious how you could so easily discount:
Saddam's 600,000+ kill streak
Free elections with 62% turnout with people literally dieing to vote.
I'm willing to bet that 62% of the population thinks a free election is a pretty big, good change.
we're under no obligation to just leave tyrannies alone... We all paid a big price, though, especially the Iraqi people.
Except that the Iraqi people didn't consent to paying the price. They weren't even asked if they want to.
Yes, they were and did. In fact, they tried to do it themselves several times before. The most famous revolt resulted in 60,000 to 100,000 civilians indiscriminately killed while 1.5 million Kurds fled the country. They knew what they were getting into.
Apple also bears a disproportionate amount of responsibility by virtue of reaping a disproportionate amount of benefit. With great power and influence comes great responsibility. And being that Apple consistently and consciously cultivates this power and influence as a matter of executing its extremely successful business strategy, its willingness and eagerness to shirk that responsibility while promoting itself as some kind of a kinder, gentler corporation is all the more insidious.
Promotes itself as kinder, gentler corporation? Apple markets themselves as a company that makes products you want by virtue of you being different and unique. "Think Different" and "It just works" are Apple marketing slogans. "Do no Evil" belongs to somebody else.
I've yet to meet anyone with a Zune or a creative player who is as large a twat waffle as Apple fanboys.
I've yet to meet anyone with a Zune or a creative player, period. Which I think disproves the GPs point more immediately.
Motorola Droids have touch screens.
McDonald's ordering computers have touch screens.
Why not say "Chinese manufacturers of Motorola's Droid..."
or "Chinese manufacturers of McDonald's Touch screens"?
GP is 100% valid. It was the *exact* same deal with the "horrible suicide rates at 'Apple's manufacturing plant".
Does anybody know that the suicide rate there is less than the national average in China? Does anybody know that Apple accounts for about 3% of the business at the plant? No. But Slashdot, CNN, and every other news site, just like this story, reports it as "Apple and others".
Why they do it? Buzz words attract attention. I *really* doubt it is any kind of conspiracy to hurt Apple. Its just the news sites trying to get people to see the headline and go "ooo I know what that is."
No, that's not at all what people are saying. Read the replies in this thread.
People are actually suggesting google should pay taxes it is not required to pay, just because they are google.
No, I'm suggesting they should pay the taxes because they are no different than any other entity in the united states that pays taxes. Everybody *can* do what Google is doing (I know some independent business owners that don't own a house or car and make less than $25k / year... yet drive a new Mercedes and live in Beverly Hills because their company owns everything, its sneaky, immoral, shouldn't happen, but its legal), but nobody SHOULD.
The very definition of a law "loophole" is something that was not an intended consequence of the law. If laws banning murder said "It is illegal to kill a man or woman...", is it then "RIGHT" if you kill a person born without sex organs? Well, the law says you can't kill a man or woman... somebody without sex organs cannot be classified as male or female, so its legal and RIGHT?
They should just make up some huge number and mail in a check, and never mind what the tax codes in these countries actually require.
What google did is both LEGAL and RIGHT.
Its legal, its not right. Also legal is J&J setting up a subsidiary to plead guilty to marketing their drugs for off-label purposes to avoid the penalty of being barred from selling to Medicare. That is another loophole to avoid the penalties. How about that? Have your kid go to jail when you kill somebody?
The law is what we as a society AGREE is RIGHT.
Oh, is that why marijuana is legal? Is that why Bush was President?
What is lawful is not necessarily what is right. What is lawful is not necessarily agreed upon by the people.
I have. So let me reply with:
UNDERSTAND THE ARTICLE.
I know that won't happen by just saying it, so I'll explain a little.
Google developed and patented their search technology here, in the US. They then sold that property to a wholly owned subsidiary in a foreign country. That subsidiary owns another subsidiary which does all the selling. That 3rd subsidiary then pays royalties to its owner for the rights to the property. The 3rd subsidiaries profits are then near 0, avoiding taxes. Meanwhile, the 2nd subsidiary (based in the Bahamas) collects billions of dollars, untaxed, in licensing fees. That money is then transferred back to Google, Inc. that you know and love, here in the US.
There you have it. Google, Inc, a US company based right here in Mountain View, CA earned $13 billion dollars, taxed at 2.5% by Ireland. All by throwing a couple anchor babies at other countries.
What Google, Inc. did not do was pay the 35% tax rate they SHOULD be paying here, or the ~20% tax rate they SHOULD be paying in Europe, where they collected the money.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't just pull random numbers out of thin air.
Speaking of which...
A 12oz can of coke (seems to be the most popular size) is 155 calories
My 12oz can says 140 calories. You want a picture?
Why bother tracking by individual? The tax is collected at time of purchase. There is no need to track beyond that. There would be no 1040ez anymore... get it?
So you determine how much to refund people based on... magic? If your annual filing requires income reports, you're going to have the same problems you have today: exemptions, donations, foreign taxes paid, income types, etc. And the person still needs to state how much they spent, meaning, receipts. Otherwise you're going to have everybody married filing separately with 1 person doing all the spending, and the other person making all the money to maximize the refund. Not to mention the black market will be HUGE. All you have to do to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever to Uncle Sam is by doing your shopping online, overseas.
As for discounts on bulk purchases, so what? Its absolutely irrelevant.
Just because you say so, its irrelevant to the small businesses that can't get started because they can't compete with the large companies that not only have higher revenues to play with, but have a lower tax burden as well, allowing them that few extra $$s to force their smaller competitors out? No, it doesn't work that way. It is relevant, and unworkable.
As for Amazon and collection of taxes... puhhleezz. They can keep some of their accounting department that would otherwise be laid off for the reduced complexity of the tax system.
When did I dispute Amazon's ability to afford the extra expense? The issue is that small businesses cannot.
A graduated system is still in play, just at the back end, after collection and stated income are known. I think I spelled that out quite clearly in my prior post.
Ok. Let me restate (and please read carefully this time):
Graduated systems that tax both income and consuming, is the closest you will ever get to "fair".
You set the sales tax rate flatly, and then settle the disproportional tax levy on the annual filing where you can have a simple, clean, discount rate based on reported income.
This is clean, simple, and inevitably fair. It is NOT perfect, but a hell of a lot better than the mess we've got right now.
Poorer folks will pay more in real terms over the course of the year, but they'll get a check back each year from the government to reimburse them. That check could include an inflation calculation, etc... to offset the initial outlay.
You can toy with the idea of setting up sales tax exempt items (such as food), but then you start to make the whole thing more complicated, and prone to manipulation.
I conduct my personal and professional life by the KISS model. I think our government can learn from it.
So, you think turning 100 million single income households filling out one 1040ez tax form into a monster that has to compile 1 year's worth of receipts on everything from their new car to the single pack of gum they bought at the fair, will reduce paperwork?
Amazon is fighting the requirement to collect sales tax for exactly that reason! Trying to keep track of the local sales tax rate in every city, county, and state in the country is a huge financial burden that only huge companies like Amazon can even fathom doing, and they know how stupid it is.
not to mention it is hardly "fair". Sales taxes predominately affect poor and small businesses. Large corporations buy everything in bulk and get large discounts for doing so. That means they will pay less in sales tax, and have a lower effective tax rate than individuals every time.
Graduated systems that tax both income and consuming, is the closest you will ever get to "fair".
but low teacher salaries are just the public education system trying to spin their atrocious performance the best way they can.
Really? So you think $30k is a respectable entry level wage for 5 years of schooling and certification?
Last I checked the companies that offered the lowest wages had the worst applicant pool to choose from.
Every Indian already knows this happened. Maybe not this specific incident, but they know that bribes change hands with EVERY decision the government makes. That is simply how things are done there.
Here, you call it a campaign contribution.
... and to the republic for which it stands ...
Written about 120 years too late to be in the minds of the authors of the Constitution.
Wrong. The US has both due process and a right to appeal. Comparing the situation in the US to that in Egypt is overgeneralizing in a way which is both incorrect and insultingly trivializing the troubles in those parts of the world that do not have US rights.
Tell that to Jose Padilla, Anwar Al-Awlaki, and every gay US Citizen waiting for their marriage certificate, equal taxation, and deployment orders.
While you're waiting for them to pickup the phone, take a look at 18 U.S.C. 981 (b)(2). No warrant needed.
How often do you reboot your car's computer today?
Never. But then, there is no handy reset button anywhere I've found.
I bet some (family members of) toyota owners wish there was though. Sudden acceleration is a killer bug.
Now imagine doing it at 70mph with your wife screaming "OMG WE'RE GONNA DIE!"
It will be completely impossible for either hacked Ford computers, or any other Wifi device operated by somebody who knows hat "MAC spoofing" means, to present inaccurate, deceptive, or otherwise unhelpful information to these Ford vehicles. I, for one, take comfort in that. FFS, dudes, trusting the client in a life-critical application? Srsly? Srsly?
Of course its safe. The FCC allocated a SECURE wifi channel for this.
You know, as an attorney, we're hired to defend vigorously the position of our clients or their interests. That doesn't necessarily mean we advocate for that position as private individuals, or that we are incapable of striking a fair position. The only thing that should matter as a nominee for a Solicitor General position is whether she can diligently represent the government's position, and that is all.
Ever wonder why so many lawyer jokes focus on their lack of morals?
No I didn't think so.
I encourage you to rent "Clerks". They have a wonderful debate about the morality of blowing up the unfinished death-star, which was no doubt packed with "innocent" independent contractors.
If you choose to work for the Evil Empire, then you are furthering their goals and deserve whatever the rebels give you.
If people start voting their principles, then third parties may only get 5% this year, but that makes it easier to get 6% next year. When people see it's rising, more people vote for it. Then you've got 7%, which encourages more people to vote. Then one year, you wake up and you've changed things.
It dominoes a lot faster than that. Ever wonder why you don't see the Libertarian & Green candidates in any debates?
Because nobody hosting a debate is required to invite them. So, if they do, the D & R will simply refuse to show up (Why should they, it would only help the 3rd party). The laws that require each candidate to receive equal media exposure does not extend to non-viable candidates. To be considered viable, your party has to get 5% of the vote in the previous election.
Vote your heart now, whatever the party. Get your friends to do it too. Until you do, we'll always be stuck with the same two corrupt royal lines.
with a large sign saying "Please, help yourself to everything inside."
What part of the real situation does that correlate to?
A website, offered to the world with no access restrictions containing a web form specifically for the purpose of retrieving the exact information the "hacker" collected combined with a TOU document that does not prohibit such actions.
The federal prosecutor disagrees. If you follow the link in TFA, you'll find:
So its like he claims: "I wanted to point out your security failures, so I opened your safe". And the federal prosecutor says: "You actually opened the safe and took the money out". While the first is possibly illegal, but let's us argue that no harm was actually done, the second is pure and simply theft.
The only problem with your analogy is the lack of mention that the safe was on your front lawn, open, with a large sign saying "Please, help yourself to everything inside."
When you step in to help a woman getting raped, you're getting yourself and only yourself (well, aside from the criminal, obviously) in danger.
Wrong. I also put the victim in danger (civilians). I put my wife & kids in danger (other citizens of my country). I put any bystanders in danger (neighboring areas). The situation is the same, just on a different scale.
When a government does the same, it is doing so with other people's tax money risking the lives of other people in the conflict.
Wrong again. This government was formed of, by and for the people. We vote them in, its our money going to the system, its us in danger.
If some politicians want to help out, they should buy some weapons out of pocket and go in themselves.
If you don't want your politicians voting to go in, then vote them out. But, like the rest of the country, you won't. Because like the rest of the country the responsibility is "not yours". The Government is screwing up, not you. The "other side" is voting wrong, not YOUR representative.
2. The US is not the world police, nor should be. Somebody being a dictator isn't an automatic justification for invasion
Possibly. Then there is the analogy of watching a woman getting raped... I'm not the local police, but I'm going to step in. Doesn't that apply to larger situations as well?
Talk about false equivalency.
By that logic, that means we should go around and liberate all oppressed nations.
If you have the power to do good, but choose not to, what does that make you?
There's is one hell of a difference between stepping in and helping someone individually in trouble and putting thousands of soldiers in harms way along with billions and trillions of dollars for the sake of bringing our version of "freedom" with the barrel of a tank.
This isn't about our version of freedom. This is about a psychotic dictator on the path to joining a select group that currently includes the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. But hey, if you think a couple billion dollars is worth more than 600,000 people... ok, have fun.
We don't do ourselves or anyone else any favors by spending and bleeding ourselves into oblivion.
Ok, so because helping everybody will "spend us into oblivion", we shouldn't help anybody?
Pro tip: Read up on the history of Saddam's reign and who his puppet master was. Yes, that was Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. Saddam got to power and stayed in power because we needed a proxy to fight against Iran when they overthrew OUR duly appointed dictator the Shah. Those fools, how dare they rebuke US power. Then we gave him weapons, including chemical weapons to fight Iran. Countless lives lost and lots of destruction.
So we put people like the Shah, and Saddam, and Noriega in power to further our interests, and act all surprised when these unstable megalomaniacs think they're big enough to bite the hand that feeds or finally push their people to the point of revolt.
Our hands are far from clean.
Huh? Stay on topic. We're talking about the moral responsibility to remove a mass-murderer from power. If you somehow think the fact that you armed him absolves you of that duty, you're sick.
2. The US is not the world police, nor should be. Somebody being a dictator isn't an automatic justification for invasion
Possibly. Then there is the analogy of watching a woman getting raped... I'm not the local police, but I'm going to step in. Doesn't that apply to larger situations as well?
3. IMO, the right thing to do would have been to leave Saddam alone, and let the country have a revolution if the citizens decide to have one.
Well, see, they tried that several times. Each time it resulted in several thousand deaths. When one side has mustard gas, and the other side has AKs... who wins? google Chemical Ali if you need help there.
4. Regardless which one was the most evil, the Iraq war didn't result in anything positive, so starting it was a mistake.
How, exactly, are you measuring that? I'm just curious how you could so easily discount:
I'm willing to bet that 62% of the population thinks a free election is a pretty big, good change.
we're under no obligation to just leave tyrannies alone ... We all paid a big price, though, especially the Iraqi people.
Except that the Iraqi people didn't consent to paying the price. They weren't even asked if they want to.
Yes, they were and did. In fact, they tried to do it themselves several times before. The most famous revolt resulted in 60,000 to 100,000 civilians indiscriminately killed while 1.5 million Kurds fled the country. They knew what they were getting into.
I don't question it.
ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a
Cue the "I got nothing to hide", "why don't you want to stop terrorists", and "this is all for your own good" posts.
This is /.
Not Fox.
Apple sucks.
You're an idiot.
You start your comment with this.
As such, a vacated ruling cannot be cited as precedent, whether binding or persuasive.
Then quote wikipedia.
Now please run along, little child. The grownups are trying to have a grown-up discussion of important things.
Then try to claim this?
Come on mods. What is a troll if not somebody that begins and ends a comment with insults?
Grow up.
Apple also bears a disproportionate amount of responsibility by virtue of reaping a disproportionate amount of benefit. With great power and influence comes great responsibility. And being that Apple consistently and consciously cultivates this power and influence as a matter of executing its extremely successful business strategy, its willingness and eagerness to shirk that responsibility while promoting itself as some kind of a kinder, gentler corporation is all the more insidious.
Promotes itself as kinder, gentler corporation? Apple markets themselves as a company that makes products you want by virtue of you being different and unique. "Think Different" and "It just works" are Apple marketing slogans. "Do no Evil" belongs to somebody else.
I've yet to meet anyone with a Zune or a creative player who is as large a twat waffle as Apple fanboys.
I've yet to meet anyone with a Zune or a creative player, period. Which I think disproves the GPs point more immediately.
Motorola Droids have touch screens.
McDonald's ordering computers have touch screens.
Why not say "Chinese manufacturers of Motorola's Droid..."
or "Chinese manufacturers of McDonald's Touch screens"?
GP is 100% valid. It was the *exact* same deal with the "horrible suicide rates at 'Apple's manufacturing plant".
Does anybody know that the suicide rate there is less than the national average in China? Does anybody know that Apple accounts for about 3% of the business at the plant? No. But Slashdot, CNN, and every other news site, just like this story, reports it as "Apple and others".
Why they do it? Buzz words attract attention. I *really* doubt it is any kind of conspiracy to hurt Apple. Its just the news sites trying to get people to see the headline and go "ooo I know what that is."
No, that's not at all what people are saying. Read the replies in this thread.
People are actually suggesting google should pay taxes it is not required to pay, just because they are google.
No, I'm suggesting they should pay the taxes because they are no different than any other entity in the united states that pays taxes. Everybody *can* do what Google is doing (I know some independent business owners that don't own a house or car and make less than $25k / year... yet drive a new Mercedes and live in Beverly Hills because their company owns everything, its sneaky, immoral, shouldn't happen, but its legal), but nobody SHOULD.
The very definition of a law "loophole" is something that was not an intended consequence of the law. If laws banning murder said "It is illegal to kill a man or woman...", is it then "RIGHT" if you kill a person born without sex organs? Well, the law says you can't kill a man or woman... somebody without sex organs cannot be classified as male or female, so its legal and RIGHT?
They should just make up some huge number and mail in a check, and never mind what the tax codes in these countries actually require.
What google did is both LEGAL and RIGHT.
Its legal, its not right. Also legal is J&J setting up a subsidiary to plead guilty to marketing their drugs for off-label purposes to avoid the penalty of being barred from selling to Medicare. That is another loophole to avoid the penalties. How about that? Have your kid go to jail when you kill somebody?
The law is what we as a society AGREE is RIGHT.
Oh, is that why marijuana is legal? Is that why Bush was President? What is lawful is not necessarily what is right. What is lawful is not necessarily agreed upon by the people.
READ THE ARTICLE.
I have. So let me reply with:
UNDERSTAND THE ARTICLE.
I know that won't happen by just saying it, so I'll explain a little.
Google developed and patented their search technology here, in the US. They then sold that property to a wholly owned subsidiary in a foreign country. That subsidiary owns another subsidiary which does all the selling. That 3rd subsidiary then pays royalties to its owner for the rights to the property. The 3rd subsidiaries profits are then near 0, avoiding taxes. Meanwhile, the 2nd subsidiary (based in the Bahamas) collects billions of dollars, untaxed, in licensing fees. That money is then transferred back to Google, Inc. that you know and love, here in the US.
There you have it. Google, Inc, a US company based right here in Mountain View, CA earned $13 billion dollars, taxed at 2.5% by Ireland. All by throwing a couple anchor babies at other countries.
What Google, Inc. did not do was pay the 35% tax rate they SHOULD be paying here, or the ~20% tax rate they SHOULD be paying in Europe, where they collected the money.