Obviously Google is not the only company that does this. Apple and other capitalist corporations do the same thing. But it's one thing to run a company based on naked greed and quite another to claim that you're somehow superior.
A better question would be posed to our governments on tax reform and simplification. But we all know the loopholes exist somewhat intentionally, otherwise they would have been closed already. The fact they're not getting closed indicates that our perception of what a company should pay and what they're legally obligated is basically wrong.
Because taxes (help) pay for the negative externalities that arise from the corporation doing business.
>A better question would be posed to our governments on tax reform and simplification. But we all know the loopholes exist somewhat intentionally, otherwise they would have been closed already. The fact they're not getting closed indicates that our perception of what a company should pay and what they're legally obligated is basically wrong.
The problem exists because of the international tax framework, and getting the governments of all the jurisdictions involved to reform the tax system is harder than a single country unilaterally doing so - especially when it greatly benefits some countries at the expense of others.
Basically is 35% of 0 dollars better than 10% of N dollars? In the US that is effectively our current dilema is it not? Our tax rates for certain things are so high people have no incentive to get double taxed in two disparate countries so they leave the money outside of any taxable entity. Improving the incentives to bring money back would seem to be a no brainer as it is a bit of a win/win situation to both sides.
As to disparities amongst countries, I'm not sure there ever could be a solution outside of some overreaching treaty agreements. Past that I'm sure there will always be a Caymans willing to lower their costs at the expense of the rest.
But as people said here the loopholes are probably deliberate.
why consumers want corporations to pay more tax as it effectively increases prices.
The fact is that most 'adults' understand that taxes pay for essential services such as education, infrastructure and health care. And during the tough times we live in aren't happy those services are being cut whilst corporations are making huge profits.
Remember this is people's day to day lives we are talking about.
I'm not arguing that paying more tax isn't inherently beneficial towards the state(s), but if the incentive is to avoid the tax, and it is legal, I fail to see the problem at all from the viewpoint of the corporation.
You're right, as long as the corporation doesn't mind if the public see it as a bunch of greedy, grasping, evil corporate bastards.
In Google's case, its "selling point" is "Don't be evil" and its business depends on trust. It's rapidly losing that trust.
For the record, Google's UK turnover in 2011 was £2.7bn, and based on its profitability, it's making about £676m and should be paying more than £180m in tax in that one year. In fact, it has paid a total of £10 million between 2006 and 2011 on revenues of £11.9bn.
If Google was a moral, ethical company then it would pay taxes that cover the cost of doing business in the UK, where it benefits from UK government expenditure on maintaining the country as a good place to do business (roads, schools, health services, police etc).
Essentially, Google is using fancy international book-keeping to defraud the British public.
That's evil in my book, whatever Google thinks.
“When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it.When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else,he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends someone else's money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn't care at all how much he spends. And when a man spends someone else's money on someone else, he doesn't care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that's government for you.”