24 Nov
2012
24 Nov
'12
midnight
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:02:08AM +1100, Brent Wallis wrote:
the last paragraph of that article is nonsensical.
"The director of the Australian National University Centre for Law
and Economics, George Barker, said the profits of companies such as
Google were not, prima facie, a bad thing. ''One thing to consider
is, corporations like Google have a lot of intellectual property and
therefore what may look like huge profits are actually a return to
moral and intellectual property,'' he said."
nobody has claimed that their profits are a bad thing - only that they
should pay the correct amount of tax on those profits.
and WTF is that bullshit about "a return to moral and intellectual property"?
a return on investment is a return on investment - i.e. a profit, and thus
taxable no matter whether you want to dress it up in bullshit phrases like
"moral and intellectual property" or not.
sounds like a deliberate distraction or, in other words, bamboozle the
suckers with bullshit.
There is a difference between legit minimisation and
out and out theft.
My company paid over $190,000 in tax last FY (a properly accounted for
"minimised" amount within the letter of the law) with revenues that are
miniscule compared with Googles in this country.
Google paid around $70,000 ?
Sure, its within the law, but is it Fair?
sure it is.....if google made about 1/3rd of the net income that your
company did.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas(a)taz.net.au>