Hi, 2 things make me think that Google has forgotten (well...perhaps never really had it any way....perhaps it was BS all along) their Don't be Evil mantra lately: 1. Why present me with a dialogue box when I was checking out the "Dumb Ways to Die" vid on doobie toob that asked why I did not want to use my real name? (Without any way to tell them where to stick it!) 2. Why do they pay less tax in Oz by more than half than what my company does? Say what? Don't be Evil? Really? BW
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis@gmail.com> wrote:
2. Why do they pay less tax in Oz by more than half than what my company does?
The Australian politicians who allow big corporations to pay no tax and often get gifts of money and legislation are the ones who are being evil. Minimising tax isn't evil and for a publicly listed company it's pretty much mandatory. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis@gmail.com>wrote:
2. Why do they pay less tax in Oz by more than half than what my company does? Say what? Don't be Evil? Really?
Well, I thought not paying more tax than you should is sign of how things should be. In fact, I vaguely remember somewhere reading that directors of a public company have a responsibility to not waste money unnecessarily, something about corporate responsibility in the Corporations Act (2001) or something like that... -- Aryan
Hi, On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Aryan Ameri <info@ameri.me> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis@gmail.com>wrote:
2. Why do they pay less tax in Oz by more than half than what my company does? Say what? Don't be Evil? Really?
Well, I thought not paying more tax than you should is sign of how things should be.
In fact, I vaguely remember somewhere reading that directors of a public company have a responsibility to not waste money unnecessarily, something about corporate responsibility in the Corporations Act (2001) or something like that...
http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/turnbull-queries-google-tax-bill... 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? BW
Brent Wallis wrote:
Sure, its within the law, but is it Fair?
Perhaps the problem is not so much the reluctance of politicians to legislate; as the ideology of rational free-market capitalism: "The 'invisible-hand' unhampered by regulation, will produce the socially optimum outcome". Personally I consider this a pathetic, irresponsible delusion ! An unregulated free-market, like an untended garden will produce only weeds; regards Rohan McLeod
On 24 November 2012 10:02, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure, its within the law, but is it Fair?
If you found a legal way to hugely reduce the tax you pay would you do it? If yes, would that make you evil? I think if Google (or any other public company) didn't try to minimize their taxes as much as legally possible they would be in serious trouble with their shareholders. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>wrote:
On 24 November 2012 10:02, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure, its within the law, but is it Fair?
If you found a legal way to hugely reduce the tax you pay would you do it?
Ah, the fishy hyperbolic bait...... Answer: No, because: 1. There simply isn't one. 2. I truly and honestly believe that fair taxation is an integral part of any civilised society. I do not bemoan my own tax bill. My argument is about the inequity. Anyone who has come up with tax minimisation schemes that deliver large cuts in the last 20 years has been caught out. Simple as that. Are you old enough to remembr where the term "bottom of the harbour" came from?
If yes, would that make you evil?
I think if Google (or any other public company) didn't try to minimize
their taxes as much as legally possible they would be in serious trouble with their shareholders.
Perhaps....but "don;t be evil" used to be Googles mantra....their words, their "rule to live by"... BW
Brent Wallis wrote:
Perhaps....but "don;t be evil" used to be Googles mantra....their words, their "rule to live by"...
When? AFAIK Google have always made their money selling eyeballs to advertisers. If you can't distinguish PR bullshit like their "unofficial motto" from reality, there's not much hope for you.
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
When? AFAIK Google have always made their money selling eyeballs to advertisers. If you can't distinguish PR bullshit like their "unofficial motto" from reality, there's not much hope for you.
In addition, the slogan is sufficiently ambiguous that many corporate practices can be considered to conform to it (or to depart from it), depending on your values and priorities.
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Brent Wallis wrote:
Perhaps....but "don;t be evil" used to be Googles mantra....their words, their "rule to live by"...
When? AFAIK Google have always made their money selling eyeballs to advertisers. If you can't distinguish PR bullshit like their "unofficial motto" from reality, there's not much hope for you.
A large part of Google's business depends on being somewhat honourable. We trust them not to read our email, not to inappropriately spy on our web searches, and to have a somewhat level playing field in search results. Anything that Google does to diminish our trust is going to eventually hurt their financial position. If Google directors sign off on "evil" things then that could be the basis for legal action by stock holders. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Brent Wallis wrote:
Perhaps....but "don;t be evil" used to be Googles mantra....their words, their "rule to live by"...
When?
Perhaps you have not been around this Internet thingy for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil AFAIK Google have always made their money selling eyeballs to
advertisers. If you can't distinguish PR bullshit like their "unofficial motto" from reality, there's not much hope for you.
O' contraire wantok. I am simply throwing back a mantra that was used to elevate them. That early meme is a classic "spin" that was successful because it relied on the collective "short" memory. Get focussed..., your smarter than that....do you think Google paying $70,000 in tax in this country is fair??? BW _______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:02:08AM +1100, Brent Wallis wrote:
http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/turnbull-queries-google-tax-bill...
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@taz.net.au>
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:02:58AM +1100, Aryan Ameri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis@gmail.com>wrote:
2. Why do they pay less tax in Oz by more than half than what my company does? Say what? Don't be Evil? Really?
Well, I thought not paying more tax than you should is sign of how things should be.
and paying less tax than you should is theft. $74,000 tax from Australian revenues of approx $1 billion is nowhere near what they should be paying. that's a tax rate of < 0.000074% The company tax rate in australia is 30% - $74K is what they should have paid if their net income was $246K. so they've fiddled the books (i.e. offshored the income to bermuda via ireland and nederlands) to claim that on gross income of around $1B they only had a net income of $246K. google has subsequently claimed that they actually pay $780K in tax. if that's true, it still only shifts the decimal point one place for an effective tax rate of 0.00078% on revenues of approx $1B. or about the right amount for a pretend net income of $2.6M. even assuming ridiculously generous expenses (rent, salaries, bills etc) of 50% of gross income, they *should* be paying around $150 Million in tax. The correct figure is, of course, somewhere between $150M and $300M. google is, of course, not the only company to evade tax. they all do it. it doesn't make it right. it makes them all thieves.
In fact, I vaguely remember somewhere reading that directors of a public company have a responsibility to not waste money unnecessarily, something about corporate responsibility in the Corporations Act (2001) or something like that...
paying their fair share of the infrastructure that their business depends on to make money is not wasting money. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #408: Computers under water due to SYN flooding.
On 24 November 2012 10:46, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
and paying less tax than you should is theft.
correction: paying less tax than you are legally required to is theft. "less tax than you should" is very subjective (it can be interpreted to mean the same as my definition above), which is why we have the laws that define how much tax is required.
google is, of course, not the only company to evade tax. they all do it. it doesn't make it right. it makes them all thieves.
It has always been an issue, in many countries, that the rich pay too little tax and and the poor pay too much. The laws need to be changed to fix this, accusing one company of being evil isn't going to change anything. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>wrote:
On 24 November 2012 10:46, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
and paying less tax than you should is theft.
correction: paying less tax than you are legally required to is theft.
"less tax than you should" is very subjective (it can be interpreted to mean the same as my definition above), which is why we have the laws that define how much tax is required.
More baity comment... Let me sharpen the perspective a little: Google last year paid about the same or less tax than a married couple who both work full time gaining the average wage!
google is, of course, not the only company to evade tax. they all do it. it doesn't make it right. it makes them all thieves.
It has always been an issue, in many countries, that the rich pay too little tax and and the poor pay too much. The laws need to be changed to fix this, accusing one company of being evil isn't going to change anything.
Please re-read my email. I have simply re-stated Googles own dogma in the context of their tax payment last year. I did not make the "evil" accusation you have asserted here. BW
participants (8)
-
Aryan Ameri -
Brent Wallis -
Brian May -
Craig Sanders -
Jason White -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck