When this loophole exists, it's tough to blame Google for not taking advantage of it. You may as well ask them to donate their profits to the federal government.
Consider that most of Google's political positions lean liberal, in subsidizing government services by raising taxes. For this same company to be participating in a scheme designed to deprive the government tax revenue, while advocating raising everyone's taxes to pay for things...
Suffice to say, this is not a company "doing the right thing", as their code of conduct suggests they should.
And bear in mind, this is not a loophole in our tax code, it is a loophole in international tax handling between multiple countries, and the primary result of this is that all of those billions get stashed in Bermuda instead of coming back to the US where it can enrich society.
This is stretching too hard to make a partisan argument. Other than the many [citation needed] statements, the reality is every company's interests involve providing some government services through taxes. Therefore it's just a matter of degree.
You are either okay with companies avoiding paying taxes they do not legally have to pay, or you are not; it doesn't matter if it's an oil company or a tech company or a car company.
I think those who argue that google and other companies should "do the right thing" are a bit naive; these companies operate under vastly complicated taxation schemes and while at the extreme end it might be somewhat obvious to us that it's not really on the up-and-up, it's extremely difficult to decide which revenues should be recognized in which locales.
Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible (really, to maximize shareholder value, which might even mean paying less tax than is legally possible, as long as the expected value of the gambit is positive).
The issue is not corporations taking advantage of it, the issue is that we have a system where an actor is obligated to optimize for certain variables within the rules of a network of systems, but the network of systems is not coordinated in a way that prevents "abuse" as everyone would like to define it, but strictly speaking, haven't.
Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax, against which "doing the right thing" is not a legitimate defense. ("Right" in that statement having different moral and legal meanings.)
Or, put another way, it would have been illegal for them to have paid that tax.
>Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax
Directors have a responsibility to the corporation, they have no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
No shareholder would win a case against a corporation for 'paying too much tax' any more than they would win a case against a corporation for paying the directors or the CEO too much money.
I don't think I agree with that. There's no reason to suggest Google's current actions[1] (hiding billions of dollars in offshore accounts) maximizes shareholder value. They could, instead, either invest that money in ways that bring shareholders returns or even pay out dividends to shareholders directly. Both methods which would generate shareholder value and improve the US economy, which is also good for shareholders.
Instead they're hoarding the money offshore in what looks like a figurative dragon in a cave hoarding shiny things. To my knowledge, hiding cash under your mattress has never been a wise investment strategy.
[1] Note: Plenty of other companies do this too. Apple, Microsoft, etc. all have played tax games, even just in the tech industry. Though I find the level of disparity between Google's public statements about how it thinks things should be, and the statements of employees who seem to think they improve humanity by working there, and the actual realities of Google's business operations bordering on the comical.
It's not about protection. I have no power over the scammer. I do not have to treat them well as they have chosen to be selfish. I can look down on them.
So its OK for Google to pay women less because they can. Or for for a politician to filter money into their wifes business because they can and its a grey area of the law.
Honestly, I cant understand all these comments essentially saying if you can get away with things you should do it. From the standards I was brought up with it seems there is a serious lack of moral compass in the world.
Suffice to say, this is not a company "doing the right thing", as their code of conduct suggests they should.
And bear in mind, this is not a loophole in our tax code, it is a loophole in international tax handling between multiple countries, and the primary result of this is that all of those billions get stashed in Bermuda instead of coming back to the US where it can enrich society.