Does it bother you to support Google the Tax Theif

[Bob Maxey]

Guys offshoring money multiple times to avoid taxes is not the same as taking standard deductions, that's ******ed. We're on a exponential slide of a larger portion of money going into a smaller percentage of the population, and in a failing economy. Letting the top 1% get away with tax evasion, not a deduction, is insane.

Not to mention, they are basically making it cheaper to outsource labor, further weakening the US job market. I'm glad you guys are ok with that, but personally coming from being recently unemployed, and having a number of friends who are too, I don't really appreciate it.

So I guess you can actually prove that the top 1% are guilty of tax evasion? You make a pretty serious charge, so good lick with that. I know off-shoring money as you put it is not the same as a standard deduction. But my point still applies: if it is not illegal, it is not cheating. Why is this so bloody hard for people to grasp? Yes indeed, punish those that break the law, but do not punish those that follow the law.

Again, if it is allowed in the tax code or other laws that govern business, it is legal and therefore not stealing or cheating. Sure, some people go off shore for labour but many do this because the business climate in the U.S. of A. creates the need. If you do not like it, seek change.

Learn a little history and discover how remarkable this great country can be. You might learn that vast numbers of United States corporations are doing what they need to do to survive. Learn a little bit about business and the issues we face, and start talking to your representatives.

If you think it is hard today, try banning all outsourcing and see what you get.

We need a greatly simplified tax code and a pro-business government. The current administration is most certainly not interested in actually helping business.

Bob

 

[Tempusfugit]

But my point still applies: if it is not illegal, it is not cheating. Why is this so bloody hard for people to grasp? Yes indeed, punish those that break the law, but do not punish those that follow the law.

I'm sure your "simplified tax code" will account for every possible situation and you won't have loopholes, so we won't have to worry about this. But in our current system, personally I don't think you will ever be able to make enough laws to concisely put into code everything that should be "against the law." I think you should still be able to punish people who go out of their way to send money around the world for no reason other than to avoid taxes, whether or not there is a law against it.

Learn a little history and discover how remarkable this great country can be. You might learn that vast numbers of United States corporations are doing what they need to do to survive. Learn a little bit about business and the issues we face, and start talking to your representatives.

Why would I bother learning history? Its well apparent you have all the knowledge the world could ever need, and you offer it all free of charge right here on android forums!

Oh, and ya google is just barely scraping by... I've heard they made some cuts to employee perks and you can only get fresh sushi OR lobster for each meal now, not both. I hear they are rationing time with the masseuse as well. Haircuts? You can still get as many haircuts as you want. Always gotta look good man.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'm sure your "simplified tax code" will account for every possible situation and you won't have loopholes, so we won't have to worry about this. But in our current system, personally I don't think you will ever be able to make enough laws to concisely put into code everything that should be "against the law." I think you should still be able to punish people who go out of their way to send money around the world for no reason other than to avoid taxes, whether or not there is a law against it.

Not my simplified tax code . . . the ideas are well considered, viable, proven, and proposed by experts. One basic idea is eliminate virtually all deductions and charge everyone a fixed amount. You make 10,000.00 per year and the rate is 10%, you pay a grand. If I make a million per year, I pay a hundred grand. Very few (if any) deductions allowed.

Another proposal is to eliminate all federal income taxes and institute a national sales tax. And eliminate the constitutional provisions that created income tax to begin with.

And then there are various versions of either plan that just adds to the confusion and slowly changes it from the designer's original intent.

So, if we greatly simplify the tax code, and we have tax cuts with corresponding cuts in spending, many problems can be eliminated. Unless your idea is put into play and we start punishing people that do not break the law.

I really do not think you want a system that punishes people for following the law, do you? Seriously, think about it. It is a dangerous road to travel. Would you like to be punished for following the law just because some person thinks what you are doing is wrong? Due process, ring a bell?

Bob

 

[A.Nonymous]

I'm sure your "simplified tax code" will account for every possible situation and you won't have loopholes, so we won't have to worry about this. But in our current system, personally I don't think you will ever be able to make enough laws to concisely put into code everything that should be "against the law." I think you should still be able to punish people who go out of their way to send money around the world for no reason other than to avoid taxes, whether or not there is a law against it.

Let me get this straight then. Assuming you're forking over 25-30% to Uncle Sam like the rest of us, let's say you discover a loophole tomorrow where you can shuffle your money around pay 0 taxes. You're not going to do it even though it's completely legal?

 

[PSkeptic]

"Using our own laws", Sounds like they are legal... tax laws are written like this to help a business grow make more money and hire more employees. learn tax law, maybe you can save yourself some taxes. maybe start a business out of your garage working on cars..

No. Tax breaks like the one presented here, are a way of redistributing wealth from the working class to the upper classes.

So, even if the individual started a business fixing cars (Or doing anything), this tax credit was designed to benefit only major corporations, while penalizing small business owners.

Let me get this straight then. Assuming you're forking over 25-30% to Uncle Sam like the rest of us, let's say you discover a loophole tomorrow where you can shuffle your money around pay 0 taxes. You're not going to do it even though it's completely legal?

Last I checked, corporations are not people... So, you are, in effect, comparing apples and oranges here.

 

[bbrosen]

Does it concern you when Google or any other company steals from America through tax loop holes? Maybe the bigger questions is do You cheat or avoid paying your fair share.

Link Here And Linked HERE and also HERE

I served the Marine Corps, I risked my life on the small war Panama Canal. Now I see teachers who make 20-50k, being forced out of work, we can

 

[PSkeptic]

When you do your taxes do you not take advantage of tax breaks and loopholes? Do you not take deductions for mortgage, car tags and registrations? medical? vehicle mileage? home office? Same thing...as long as it is legal. don't like the legal loopholes, then work to change them.

Again, corporations =/= people.

 

[bbrosen]

No. Tax breaks like the one presented here, are a way of redistributing wealth from the working class to the upper classes.

So, even if the individual started a business fixing cars (Or doing anything), this tax credit was designed to benefit only major corporations, while penalizing small business owners.



Last I checked, corporations are not people... So, you are, in effect, comparing apples and oranges here.

LOL, corp are people, what are they robots? venusians? Raccoons?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Last I checked, corporations are not people... So, you are, in effect, comparing apples and oranges here.

Fair enough. But that brings up another question. An individual taking advantage of loopholes to keep from paying taxes is ok, but a corporation doing the same thing is not? Why?

 

[A.Nonymous]

LOL, corp are people, what are they robots? venusians? Raccoons?

They are legal entities, but they're not people. There is a completely different set of laws/rules/regulations that apply to them.

 

[PSkeptic]

Fair enough. But that brings up another question. An individual taking advantage of loopholes to keep from paying taxes is ok, but a corporation doing the same thing is not? Why?

Because the purpose of governments is to service the people. Not to service corporations.

Especially corporations that have more money than many countries.

 

[lunatic59]

The whining of a bored media pandering to a spoiled middle class. Google is behaving legally according to Federal and International tax laws, ethically by reporting income properly in accordance with those laws, and responsibly by reducing their net financial liabilities. It's called good business ... one of the reasons Google is a thriving corporation.

Accusing any U.S. based corporation of cheating the U.S. out of its due financial obligation because it avails itself of the benefit of foreign economic advantages smacks of nationalism (not to be confused with patriotism). Remember that in the '70s and more recently, the severity of our national financial crises was lessened by the vast influx of foreign money, without which we might now be in the midst of our third great depression.

Some random thoughts on taxation.

Income tax in the U.S. as we know it was instituted by Congress as a temporary measure to prevent the Union from going bankrupt during the Civil war. It was discontinued in 1872 when the Govt. reverted to being funded by the taxes and tariffs on tobacco and distilled spirits, primarily. In the late 19th century Congress tried to reinstate the income tax but was knocked down by the supreme court ruling that a national income tax was unconstitutional. It was the 16th Amendment passed in 1913 that added the right to levy a national income tax part of the Constitution. Federal withholding was not instituted until 1943. Since then the tax code has been amended to be this convoluted monstrosity of exceptions deductions and loopholes we have in an ever-increasingly complex global economy.

Social Security was never intended to be a tax-supported entitlement program, either. It was instituted to be a federal deposit retirement account only, but we all know how that worked out.

If you want to find fault in the companies forced to abide by these laws, then perhaps it would be best to criticize the lawmakers and the people who put them in office.

As for fairness, it is often a divergent concept from what is practical, or even possible. I don't think it's fair that I am forced to pay the local school board obscene amounts of taxes for the marginal education that today's school children are receiving, especially since we paid privately for the education of our children. I don't think it's fair that the state has the right to tax my transactions that occur outside of its borders because my primary residence is within those borders. I don't think it's fair that the tax rate is variable based on income and location. I don't think it's particularly fair that my current annual tax liability is greater than the combined income of my parents when they were my age. However, the truth that life is not fair is something we should have all learned on the playground. Crying about it then was as fruitless as is complaining about the larger inequities suffered as an adult.

Let me paraphrase Roosevelt when talking about the depression and inflation ... "Better that a loaf of bread costs a dollar and you have the dollar, than bread cost a dime but you haven't got a dime."

 

[lunatic59]

Because the purpose of governments is to service the people. Not to service corporations.

I can't speak for all governments, but that is incorrect for the United States as summarized in the preamble of the constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What it is saying is that our government was set up as a protective body that should otherwise leave its citizens alone to pursue our lives freely, without authoritarian intervention. It is not there to service corporations or private citizens.

Especially corporations that have more money than many countries.

Completely irrelevant.

 

[PSkeptic]

...words...
Accusing any U.S. based corporation of cheating the U.S. out of its due financial obligation because it avails itself of the benefit of foreign economic advantages smacks of nationalism
...words...

This isn't a matter of availing oneself of the benefits of foreign econmic advantages. This is a matter of codified tax law stating that if a US corporation moves it's profits into off-shore accounts, they are tax free. It's also about another codified law that states corporations who offshore jobs are given a tax break.

This is corporations writing tax code to benefit themselves.

I can't speak for all governments, but that is incorrect for the United States as summarized in the preamble of the constitution.

I find that the people who generally run to the constitution of the US, and quote it are generally those who know the least about it.

The preamble of the constitution serves no legal basis, and has been discarded in the SCOTUS as having any weight on interpretation. In fact, the federalist papers have more weight than the preamble does.

What it is saying is that our government was set up as a protective body that should otherwise leave its citizens alone to pursue our lives freely, without authoritarian intervention. It is not there to service corporations or private citizens.

Read a little more... "Promote the general welfare"... That means, a government derives it's authority to govern from the governed. And our founding document has an entire section on how to promote the general welfare.

So, I said nothing about "authoritarian intervention", but rather servicing the will of the people. Not servicing the will of the corporations.

Completely irrelevant.

Wholly relevant. The government was instituted to execute the will of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority. It was not instituted to protect corporations, in fact, that was something that was warned about.

 

[byteware]

This isn't a matter of availing oneself of the benefits of foreign econmic advantages. This is a matter of codified tax law stating that if a US corporation moves it's profits into off-shore accounts, they are tax free. It's also about another codified law that states corporations who offshore jobs are given a tax break.

AND? It's the law... Don't like it... change the law.

This is corporations writing tax code to benefit themselves.

See, I was under the impression that only Congress could write tax law.

I find that the people who generally run to the constitution of the US, and quote it are generally those who know the least about it.

Like the Supreme Court? You know they determined that Corporations are citizens with rights?

So, I said nothing about "authoritarian intervention", but rather servicing the will of the people. Not servicing the will of the corporations.

There's that "I know more than the Supreme Court about the Constitution" again.

Corporations are citizens of this country. Sorry.

Wholly relevant. The government was instituted to execute the will of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority. It was not instituted to protect corporations, in fact, that was something that was warned about.

How much money a corporation has, is completely irrelevant as to how it is treated by the government.

Unless this is another, The rich are too rich rant... and then... carry on.

 

[lunatic59]

This isn't a matter of availing oneself of the benefits of foreign econmic advantages. This is a matter of codified tax law stating that if a US corporation moves it's profits into off-shore accounts, they are tax free. It's also about another codified law that states corporations who offshore jobs are given a tax break.

This is corporations writing tax code to benefit themselves.

Reducing or eliminating a tax or a levy is an economic advantage. And if it is part of our tax code, then it is perfectly legal that Google avail themselves of it. To do otherwise would be irresponsible to their shareholders. Their fiscal responsibility is being satisfied by adhering to the tax code, whether or not it is equitable when compared to a private citizen's responsibility.

Congress enacts the tax codes, not corporations. They exert influence through lobbyists, but the lawmakers enact the laws. If they are being unduly influenced in favor of a private corporation and a specific agenda that is detrimental to the nation and its citizenry, then the fault of ethics and morality lie with the legislature, not the corporation. Additionally, it is not impossible that a corporation's specific agenda might also benefit the governement.

I find that the people ...

Ad hominems are unnecessary.

Read a little more... "Promote the general welfare"... That means, a government derives it's authority to govern from the governed. And our founding document has an entire section on how to promote the general welfare.

That is a rather broad generalization. Perhaps you could indicate which article, section or amendment specifically addresses your interpretation of that statement.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

So, I said nothing about "authoritarian intervention", but rather servicing the will of the people. Not servicing the will of the corporations.

"...servicing the will of its citizens." would be a more correct interpretation. Seeing as the law recognizes corporations to have the same standing as a person, then, they are in fact required to "service the will" of corporations as well. The problem with generalizations lies with the fact that there is almost never a consensus of that collective will and hence will always be contrary to someone's position. Our government is (or supposed to be) representative of the majority, not the totality, of its citizens.

Wholly relevant. The government was instituted to ...

What I was commenting on was the observation that a corporation's wealth should have some bearing on its legal standing.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I have no children. Yet my taxes pay the school system. My house has never caught on fire yet I fund the fire department for everyone else's house who does. You may argue that I might one day need said services, but why do I pay to fund the fire stations in the areas of the city/county that I never go? I live on the north west side of town. I fund firestations on the southeast side of town too. I drive the same roads every day yet I pay to fund everyone of them. Even the roads I've never driven on in my life. The city recently built a new arena. My tax dollars subsidized it. Yet, when I go attend shows there I pay the exact same prices as those people who came from out of state who never spent a penny on taxes to support said arena. zomg111 It's not fair!!!

 

[byteware]

Does it concern you when Google or any other company steals from America through tax loop holes? Maybe the bigger questions is do You cheat or avoid paying your fair share.

Link Here And Linked HERE and also HERE

I served the Marine Corps, I risked my life on the small war Panama Canal. Now I see teachers who make 20-50k, being forced out of work, we can