Totally agree with you, just because you're paying less taxes doesn't make a
bad citizen or unpatriotic. And in the US alone the so called loophole are
actually laws enacted by congress or some states like Delaware or Nevada, which
are fll blown tax havens. There are some great reporting on
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:58:40 +0100, mP miroslav.poko...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not an obligation, it's just common sense, which extends to
individuals as well. Why wouldn't you strive to pay as little tax as
possible while remaining within the law?
Its simply being a good citizen.
So why
Even better, why doesn't mP lead the way in doing so - maybe the rest of us
will be inspired.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Fabrizio Giudici
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:58:40 +0100, mP miroslav.poko...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not an obligation, it's just
Stop corporation tax entirely.
Tax is NOT a cost, even though it's typically accounted as such. Tax is a
distribution just as dividends are, and you don't very often see
companies seeking to minimise dividends because they're cash leaving the
company that should be treated as a cost.
Plus, the idea of the government being a de facto shareholder sounds like
some of the nastier governmental systems from the last hundred years.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.comwrote:
Stop corporation tax entirely.
Tax is NOT a cost, even though it's
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:51:20 +0100, Joseph Ottinger
j...@enigmastation.com wrote:
Plus, the idea of the government being a de facto shareholder sounds like
some of the nastier governmental systems from the last hundred years.
I think that Kevin was thinking of a sort of partial
So long as companies like Google are dodging their taxes, the rest of us
are in fact paying our taxes twice - once for us, and once for them.
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Fabrizio Giudici
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:58:40 +0100, mP miroslav.poko...@gmail.com
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:54:01 +0100, Jon Kiparsky jon.kipar...@gmail.com
wrote:
So long as companies like Google are dodging their taxes, the rest of us
are in fact paying our taxes twice - once for us, and once for them.
You guys still avoided (or evaded?) my question: where's the right
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:49:11 +0100, picolax
l...@hepatitisscotland.org.uk wrote:
it seems the basic argument expressed by those who support google's tax
evasion/avoidance (and don't hit me with semantics, they are both the
same
it's just one is artificially within the law) is that seeing
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:49 AM, picolax l...@hepatitisscotland.org.ukwrote:
it seems the basic argument expressed by those who support google's tax
evasion/avoidance (and don't hit me with semantics, they are both the same
it's just one is artificially within the law)
Right, in much the
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:49 AM, picolax l...@hepatitisscotland.org.ukwrote:
it seems the basic argument expressed by those who support google's tax
evasion/avoidance (and don't hit me with semantics, they are both the
I think the only really unfair thing here is that UK companies, like Caffe'
Nero cannot enjoy this artificial tax cut, while Starbucks (being US
corporation) can. Same for a UK startup against Google for example.
AFAIK US is one of the few country that allows for this behaviour of its
corporation
It's not an obligation, it's just common sense, which extends to
individuals as well. Why wouldn't you strive to pay as little tax as
possible while remaining within the law?
Its simply being a good citizen. All of Googles customers need schools,
hospitals, roads, government, education
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:58 PM, mP miroslav.poko...@gmail.com wrote:
Its simply being a good citizen.
Paying more taxes than what you should is being a good citizen? I'm at a
loss for words, here.
Link 1 http://www.google.com/giving/
Link 2 http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2005/10/5420/
it seems the basic argument expressed by those who support google's tax
evasion/avoidance (and don't hit me with semantics, they are both the same
it's just one is artificially within the law) is that seeing as the
government can't come up with a decent law it is therefore the companies
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 07:12 -0800, Eric Jablow wrote:
[…]
Accusing someone falsely of pedophilia is not a small lapse in
journalistic judgement. Covering up your fellow employees pedophilia
is not a small lapse in journalistic judgement. Not stopping your fellow
employees from raping children
That's like saying it's ok to murder someone if you happen across an area
without any laws against murder (e.g., the Moon, Antarctica(?)).
There's no law against writing a bug in your code but svn blame and git
blame still happily put the blame on you.
On Nov 14, 2012 8:33 AM, Uberto Barbini
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:39:52 +0100, Ricky Clarkson
ricky.clark...@gmail.com wrote:
That's like saying it's ok to murder someone if you happen across an area
without any laws against murder (e.g., the Moon, Antarctica(?)).
Let's not confuse the personal and public profiles. Most people here
Someone will ALWAYS find a way around whatever laws are put in place,
perhaps a better approach would be to play these companies at their own
game. A game where brand is *everything*
Prime-time TV adverts, funded by government, in which the worst tax evasion
offenders are daily named and shamed.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:08:01 +0100, Kevin Wright
kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
Prime-time TV adverts, funded by government, in which the worst tax
evasion
I'd be very worried of such a thing funded by a government, as this could
be used to retaliate corporates for other political
It's the sort of thing that 38 degrees might be interested in (at least in
the UK), but my main concern is that the whole thing should be funded by
the increased tax revenue that it generates.
We certainly shouldn't expect private individuals to have to donate in
order to get corporations to pay
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:45:43 +0100, Kevin Wright
kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
It's the sort of thing that 38 degrees might be interested in (at least
in
the UK), but my main concern is that the whole thing should be funded by
the increased tax revenue that it generates.
We certainly
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:39:49 AM UTC-5, Russel wrote:
The sadness of the moment is that the BBC made a couple of small lapses
of journalistic judgement recently and now the politicians are baying
for blood and trying to decimate the BBC, principally to stop it being a
strong
Actually the BBC fairly frequently criticises its own reporting, and it
even goes a step more meta, criticism of its own criticism of its own
reporting. The Balen case is of an internal report into its own reporting
that it decided not to make public. I don't recall the case and am getting
all
We're not accusing you of being illegal, we're accusing you of being
immoral.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20288077
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Fabrizio Giudici
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:10:56 +0100, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com
wrote:
I just listened to the Jeremy Vine spot on BBC Radio 2 where they discussed
this. The government is encouraging boycotts of Amazon, Google and
Starbucks and I don't believe they are pursuing any legal action. I think
that's reasonable, although I'm not going to partake in a boycott as I
would do
The government is encouraging boycotts of Amazon, Google and Starbucks
Why dont they fix the rules/laws? If the current systems allows people to
avoid taxes, fix it. I am sure is not only Google, Amazon I may not
understand Brits, but if you choose a Chancellor who is a tax evader
himself (or
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 15:09 +0100, Raul Guiu wrote:
[…]
understand Brits, but if you choose a Chancellor who is a tax evader
himself (or at least someone who is skilful finding loopholes), what do you
expect?
[…]
This isn't particularly British, it's about politicians in a democracy.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Russel Winder rus...@winder.org.uk wrote:
they are there to make a profit.
There is plenty of evidence that this is far, far from being their main
priority. For example, if it were, food would have stopped being free for
employees (and guests) on the day they
But you could say that being good to employees is helping them make a
profit. For without happy employees, they tend to leave or do their job
poorly. So the food, phones, and other expenses are probably tiny compared
to salaries. Some companies like Fog Creek Software believe it doing
everything
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:57:45 +0100, Ricky Clarkson
ricky.clark...@gmail.com wrote:
Corporates are composed of human beings, and those human beings do have
morals, so I don't see why you wouldn't expect a corporation to behave
like
the human beings it's composed of (or at least like its
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:01:56 +0100, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com
wrote:
Anyone who has worked there will tell you that the leadership at Google
is
absolutely convinced that their #1 priority is their employees.
This doesn't counter the previous argument. I'm pretty sure that Google
How about mortgage lenders that pushed mortgages to people who cannot
possibly afford to?
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Fabrizio Giudici
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:03:31 +0100, rakesh mailgroups
rakesh.mailgro...@gmail.com wrote:
We're not accusing you
I'm quite glad that the UK government doesn't just change the laws on the
spot when something happens that it doesn't like, and having lived in a
more.. latin country the last couple of years I've seen the dangers of a
government that can propose an idea and have it become law in one sitting.
A
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:37:51 +0100, Oscar Hsieh zen...@gmail.com wrote:
How about mortgage lenders that pushed mortgages to people who cannot
possibly afford to?
Doesn't make any difference. They are still corporates, right? I consider
obvious that any business would push its behaviours to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:40:54 +0100, Ricky Clarkson
ricky.clark...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm quite glad that the UK government doesn't just change the laws on the
spot when something happens that it doesn't like, and having lived in a
more.. latin country the last couple of years I've seen the
It's certainly entertaining how these tax evasion schemes force companies
to make interesting claims about their work force. :-)
I wonder if there is any scientific work regarding the design of taxation
laws which would prevent or at least decrease the exploitability of
loopholes.
Maybe the
This is about tax avoidance, not tax evasion. There is a big difference.
--
Cédric
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Simon Ochsenreither
simon.ochsenreit...@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly entertaining how these tax evasion schemes force companies
to make interesting claims about their
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:10:56 +0100, Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com
wrote:
This is about tax avoidance, not tax evasion. There is a big difference.
Correct. But often the practical difference is hard to tell. I mean:
technically, when it's legal it's avoidance, when it's illegal it's
39 matches
Mail list logo
