[takluyver]

I'm not suggesting they should make saintly donations of money without anyone asking them. I'm saying they shouldn't find ways to weasel out of taxes that it's pretty clear they're intended to pay. That's what they were accused of.

I don't know what schemes Google has come up with, but Starbucks faced similar criticism recently, and I heard a bit about what they do. The Starbucks 'brand' is owned by a company somewhere with minimal taxes. Starbucks UK pays 'royalties' to that company which conveniently come to just about all of its profits. Then Starbucks UK tells the taxman that it's making almost no profit, and hence owes almost no tax. That's not just 'interpretation', that's an out-and-out loophole. They have found a way to disguise their profits (and they do call them profits to their investors). Given enough time, we can close that loophole, but not nearly as quickly as they find a new one. So I'll get angry with them, and hope that if enough people do, maybe they'll stop hunting for loopholes and pay their taxes.