FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Google.
::Off-topic discussion.
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman7155No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 22 200123 years333rd
OnlineLast PostLast Page
4th Sep 24 04:131st Sep 24 23:56LINK
Milestone Posts
5000
10000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Sydney 2000

Google. : Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:21 pm  
Google chairman Eric Schmidt has defended the company's tax policies, saying of the internet giant's moves to get out of paying billions of dollars: "It's called capitalism".

"I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-bu ... 2batw.html


Annoyingly, he does correctly point out that the governments offer incentives and they just use them. I think it's just the way he comes across with such impunity and even perhaps arrogrance.

What people like this fail to realise, is that they can be well and truly done over by the public who don't realise what power we have. If people were serious, they could simply put it out there to everyone to simply not use Google again until they pay what they owe. It really is that simple. Get people to use other search engines and to change their default search engine away from Google. If it was pushed worldwide via the web and got any form of publicity, you watch their share price drop.

"It's called capitalism"
Google chairman Eric Schmidt has defended the company's tax policies, saying of the internet giant's moves to get out of paying billions of dollars: "It's called capitalism".

"I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-bu ... 2batw.html


Annoyingly, he does correctly point out that the governments offer incentives and they just use them. I think it's just the way he comes across with such impunity and even perhaps arrogrance.

What people like this fail to realise, is that they can be well and truly done over by the public who don't realise what power we have. If people were serious, they could simply put it out there to everyone to simply not use Google again until they pay what they owe. It really is that simple. Get people to use other search engines and to change their default search engine away from Google. If it was pushed worldwide via the web and got any form of publicity, you watch their share price drop.

"It's called capitalism"
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Star3605No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jul 09 201212 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
20th May 16 14:5420th May 16 10:16LINK
Milestone Posts
2500
5000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Leeds
Signature
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece
----------------------------------------------------------
Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork
----------------------------------------------------------
JerryChicken - The Blog
----------------------------------------------------------

Re: Google. : Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:20 pm  
He's right though, I believe Google have a major office in Dublin and obviously its because the Irish set their rate of Corporation tax low so as to attract such businesses, if the Uk government want to attract business, attract lots of jobs which then hand over lots of income tax and NIS and a little lower Corporation tax which is actually higher than none because Google avoid paying it here, then they know what they have to do.

Avoiding using Starbucks is far, far easier than avoiding Google though - well actually, no its not, its just not as convenient, and at the end of it all, they aren't doing anything illegal at all.
John_D 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman31779
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 21 200223 years291st
OnlineLast PostLast Page
23rd Jul 24 07:1515th Jul 24 07:10LINK
Milestone Posts
30000
40000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
The commentary box
Signature
johnpdobson.com


Twitter
Moderator

Re: Google. : Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:00 am  
He's identified the problem and the solution in one throwaway comment.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: Google. : Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:52 am  
Indeed. But essentially it is pretty standard government practice: offer massive incentives - such as zero tax rates - to get large corporations to operate in the UK; in the event, then blame them for doing it if made public.

All the smoke and mirrors about them "complying with the law" is just that. There IS no specific law, for example, to say you can't transfer all your profits as "royalties" to your "sister company" in Holland or wherever. I get sick and tired of this "we're breaking no law" claptrap. You don't, and couldn't, make a separate law to cater for every possible combination of factors. The argument is a bit like being caught speeding, but saying there is no specific law that says I can't speed at 19:53 on this stretch of Acacia Avenue. Like the speeding law, there is indeed general law and powers to catch what may be termed "associated operations" etc., and the taxman has the power to look at the whole picture, and assess the company on what it is really doing, rather than on the basis of convoluted artificial schemes set up at huge cost to no purpose but to avoid tax.

The truth is that the taxman has NEVER gone after any of these big deals. They are content to ruthlessly pursue lesser mortals. They have no interest in the likes of Starbucks since they bloody well know that the whole arrangement is with government connivance agreement and encouragement anyway, and while they have to bluster for a bit when occasionally caught out, in the end, nothing will change.

And you will always get apologists for the Amagooglebucks of this world who bleat about "Yes, but they create jobs and gather tax and NI and if you make them pay tax they will go elsewhere etc etc". Really? They would? Well, then bye.

But that is not the issue. The issue is that this is all privately of great embarrassment to those in power and their clone predecessors, who publicly have to make certain noises but privately know it is all basically agreed on the QT on secret understandings and assurances, many of which end up with certain people in the future happening to land certain handsomely paid executive jobs or be otherwise handsomely rewarded. I'd bet even the mincing PR release from Starbucks ("We hear you; we now see we 'need to do more' when it comes to paying corporation tax") did not come out before they had agreed tactics to sing from the same hymn sheet. They all know though that the fuss will die down, and that nothing will materially change.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman37704No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 25 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
7th Aug 18 19:077th Aug 18 19:06LINK
Milestone Posts
30000
40000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Signature
The older I get, the better I was

Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't

I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."

cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan

Re: Google. : Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:17 am  
It's reasonably simple and transparent to avoid Starbucks and find a readily available alternative, less so with google, eBay & Amazon. People can see that they pay Starbucks because they actually hand cash over at the counter. Few pay google directly when they buy anything, similarly with Amazon & eBay, they make their revenues from advertising and from sellers' fees, so it's less transparent.

Starbucks offer of a £20m gift is laudable and laughable at the same time. If these companies choose not to participate in contributing to the benefits dervived from the provision of healthcare, education and indfrastructure, through taxation, then HMG should simply send them an annual bill with a guestimate. It's no different to what Starbucks have offered.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach14135No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Oct 09 200420 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
28th Apr 19 21:058th Apr 19 15:18LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
"I've not come 'alfway round t'world fot watch us lose. And I've come halfway round t'world, an' av watched um lose"

Re: Google. : Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:34 pm  
Too right, it's annoying that companies like Google get out of paying their fair whack of tax. I believe they should, indeed, pay what they technically owe.

BUT, if such incentives were not offered, Google (and others) simply wouldn't set up business there. They'd find somewhere else with a more 'attractive' tax system. You might think that's OK, but with companies like Google come lots and lots of jobs, and with those jobs come employees, all of whom pay tax on both their earnings and on what they spend their wages on. Without companies like Google investing in the local economy, those jobs simply wouldn't exist.

And then you've got the money Google spend on being able to do business and provide those jobs. Their offices have to be paid for, as do their internet connections, their phones, their office equipment, any office materials, and whatever else Google need to use in order to do business.

I'm not defending this, but Governments have to do their sums too, and if the lack of corporation tax is more than made up for with the tax they collect on related activities, then the argument that the country is being robbed stacks up a bit less than if you simplify it all as "Google don't pay tax"

I'm not saying it's right, all this, but if it's a case of "jobs v no jobs", or more accurately "jobs, investment and local spending v a fat nothing" then what's the alternative, really?
RankPostsTeam
International Board Member1642No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 13 200322 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
24th Apr 15 18:4124th Apr 15 18:41LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
Someday, somewhere, today’s empires are tomorrow’s ashes.

Re: Google. : Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:12 pm  
ROBINSON wrote:
Too right, it's annoying that companies like Google get out of paying their fair whack of tax. I believe they should, indeed, pay what they technically owe.

BUT, if such incentives were not offered, Google (and others) simply wouldn't set up business there. They'd find somewhere else with a more 'attractive' tax system. You might think that's OK, but with companies like Google come lots and lots of jobs, and with those jobs come employees, all of whom pay tax on both their earnings and on what they spend their wages on. Without companies like Google investing in the local economy, those jobs simply wouldn't exist.

And then you've got the money Google spend on being able to do business and provide those jobs. Their offices have to be paid for, as do their internet connections, their phones, their office equipment, any office materials, and whatever else Google need to use in order to do business.

I'm not defending this, but Governments have to do their sums too, and if the lack of corporation tax is more than made up for with the tax they collect on related activities, then the argument that the country is being robbed stacks up a bit less than if you simplify it all as "Google don't pay tax"

I'm not saying it's right, all this, but if it's a case of "jobs v no jobs", or more accurately "jobs, investment and local spending v a fat nothing" then what's the alternative, really?


But other companies in the same market who do pay corporation tax are then disadvantaged. This has long been a complaint of Tim Waterstone (amongst others) who see their companies being undercut by those who don't pay tax. If you're going to go down the 'ah, but they create jobs' route, you surely also need to take into account the jobs lost elsewhere in those companies being undercut.
ROBINSON wrote:
Too right, it's annoying that companies like Google get out of paying their fair whack of tax. I believe they should, indeed, pay what they technically owe.

BUT, if such incentives were not offered, Google (and others) simply wouldn't set up business there. They'd find somewhere else with a more 'attractive' tax system. You might think that's OK, but with companies like Google come lots and lots of jobs, and with those jobs come employees, all of whom pay tax on both their earnings and on what they spend their wages on. Without companies like Google investing in the local economy, those jobs simply wouldn't exist.

And then you've got the money Google spend on being able to do business and provide those jobs. Their offices have to be paid for, as do their internet connections, their phones, their office equipment, any office materials, and whatever else Google need to use in order to do business.

I'm not defending this, but Governments have to do their sums too, and if the lack of corporation tax is more than made up for with the tax they collect on related activities, then the argument that the country is being robbed stacks up a bit less than if you simplify it all as "Google don't pay tax"

I'm not saying it's right, all this, but if it's a case of "jobs v no jobs", or more accurately "jobs, investment and local spending v a fat nothing" then what's the alternative, really?


But other companies in the same market who do pay corporation tax are then disadvantaged. This has long been a complaint of Tim Waterstone (amongst others) who see their companies being undercut by those who don't pay tax. If you're going to go down the 'ah, but they create jobs' route, you surely also need to take into account the jobs lost elsewhere in those companies being undercut.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Board Member28186No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Apr 03 200322 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
17th Aug 16 11:3717th Aug 16 11:37LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
A world of my own ...
Signature
"As you travel through life don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things" - George Carlin

//twitter.com/AndyGilder

//fromthewesternterrace.blogspot.co.uk

This week: Four keys to a Rhinos win in the WCC

Re: Google. : Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:13 pm  
Google's European operations are based in Ireland. They pay Corporation Tax to the Irish Treasury, at the appropriate rate, on any profits that they make.

See also Ebay and Amazon in (IIRC) Luxembourg.

Where their end customer is has absolutely zero relevance to where the Corporation Tax is payable on their profits, in the same way that a UK business pays UK Corporation Tax on its profits even if all its customers are overseas.

There is a campaign of significant misinformation coming out of HMG at the moment as regards "tax avoidance". Still, it's much easier to find some corporate sap to blame than actually sitting down to address the widening tax gap and why the tax authorities are incapable of doing the job they are supposed to be there to do.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach14135No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Oct 09 200420 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
28th Apr 19 21:058th Apr 19 15:18LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
"I've not come 'alfway round t'world fot watch us lose. And I've come halfway round t'world, an' av watched um lose"

Re: Google. : Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:39 pm  
Red John wrote:
But other companies in the same market who do pay corporation tax are then disadvantaged. This has long been a complaint of Tim Waterstone (amongst others) who see their companies being undercut by those who don't pay tax. If you're going to go down the 'ah, but they create jobs' route, you surely also need to take into account the jobs lost elsewhere in those companies being undercut.


I don't doubt this, and I do agree to a point.

But small companies are also disadvantaged in most areas. Comparative lack of cash availability and buying power (thus being unable to get as large a trade discount as a bigger buyer, for instance) being two examples.

The point I'm making is that there are many other things to take into account as well as corporation tax. For instance, no-one is saying that sliding scale trade discounts have to end, are they?
Red John wrote:
But other companies in the same market who do pay corporation tax are then disadvantaged. This has long been a complaint of Tim Waterstone (amongst others) who see their companies being undercut by those who don't pay tax. If you're going to go down the 'ah, but they create jobs' route, you surely also need to take into account the jobs lost elsewhere in those companies being undercut.


I don't doubt this, and I do agree to a point.

But small companies are also disadvantaged in most areas. Comparative lack of cash availability and buying power (thus being unable to get as large a trade discount as a bigger buyer, for instance) being two examples.

The point I'm making is that there are many other things to take into account as well as corporation tax. For instance, no-one is saying that sliding scale trade discounts have to end, are they?
EHW 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Owner8627
JoinedServiceReputation
Nov 02 200321 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
4th Feb 20 16:104th Feb 20 13:01LINK
Milestone Posts
5000
10000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
Forever in Rented Accomodation

Re: Google. : Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:20 pm  
ROBINSON wrote:
BUT, if such incentives were not offered, Google (and others) simply wouldn't set up business there. They'd find somewhere else with a more 'attractive' tax system.


Of course they would still operate here. The UK is Google's 2nd biggest market, and accounts for 11% of their global business revenue. Starbucks generate over £3bn in revenue in the UK. The UK is too valuable to them simply to avoid being here. They would still be here, even if they had to pay 25% corporation tax.
Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 208 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to The Sin Bin


RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
6m
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
NickyKiss
4
20m
IMG Score
Bull Mania
88
27m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63327
28m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40862
30m
Film game
Boss Hog
6007
38m
IMG scores
BarnsleyTrin
266
Recent
2025 Season tickets
Bullseye
29
Recent
2025 Kits
Dave K.
32
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
2025 Season tickets
Bullseye
29
1m
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Douglas Blac
3
1m
IMG Score
Bull Mania
88
1m
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Armavinit
2
1m
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
1m
Mike Cooper podcast
karetaker
48
2m
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
NickyKiss
4
2m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
karetaker
45
2m
2024 l Academy Scholarship & Reserves News
ArthurClues
224
3m
Salford placed in special measures
supercat
126
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
WWste
1
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
NickyKiss
4
TODAY
Rule Changes
mwindass
4
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
ColD
2
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
RLFANS Match Centre
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds - Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield - Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield - St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
6m
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
NickyKiss
4
20m
IMG Score
Bull Mania
88
27m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63327
28m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40862
30m
Film game
Boss Hog
6007
38m
IMG scores
BarnsleyTrin
266
Recent
2025 Season tickets
Bullseye
29
Recent
2025 Kits
Dave K.
32
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
2025 Season tickets
Bullseye
29
1m
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Douglas Blac
3
1m
IMG Score
Bull Mania
88
1m
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Armavinit
2
1m
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
1m
Mike Cooper podcast
karetaker
48
2m
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
NickyKiss
4
2m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
karetaker
45
2m
2024 l Academy Scholarship & Reserves News
ArthurClues
224
3m
Salford placed in special measures
supercat
126
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
WWste
1
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
NickyKiss
4
TODAY
Rule Changes
mwindass
4
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
ColD
2
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!