Google Revenues Sheltered in No-Tax Bermuda Soar to $10 Billion

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 10, 2012 3:56 PM GMT
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 1:35 AM GMT
    Where's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 1:46 AM GMT
    All the more reason for reforming corporate tax laws and lessening the effect of lobbying on Congress. At least Google paid some tax (21%)...compared to the ones that didn't pay any at all while spending millions on lobbying.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/12/14/29-companies-that-paid-millions-for-lobbying-and-didnt-pay-taxes/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 11:12 AM GMT
    No responses, the white house hasn't issued any talking points on this yet....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 12:03 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidNo responses, the white house hasn't issued any talking points on this yet....


    God, you're thick. Google should pay it's taxes and, if it isn't, the IRS should act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 1:14 PM GMT
    Actually this is a great example of everything the left has been saying on this forum.

    Corporations and the rich are not really paying their fair share in taxes.


    Blakes7 saidWhere's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 1:18 PM GMT
    creyente saidActually this is a great example of everything the left has been saying on this forum.

    Corporations and the rich are not really paying their fair share in taxes.


    Blakes7 saidWhere's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.


    It's crony capitalism at its finest. The left often seems to be selective in their criticisms. Take someone like Christian who works at a charity - he advocates for charitable deductions yet the people who are most able to afford them are the rich - and yet he wants the rich to pay more taxes.

    It's human nature to be greedy but ...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 1:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    creyente saidActually this is a great example of everything the left has been saying on this forum.

    Corporations and the rich are not really paying their fair share in taxes.


    Blakes7 saidWhere's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.


    It's crony capitalism at its finest. The left often seems to be selective in their criticisms. Take someone like Christian who works at a charity - he advocates for charitable deductions yet the people who are most able to afford them are the rich - and yet he wants the rich to pay more taxes.

    It's human nature to be greedy but ...


    You're an idiot. Paying taxes and donating to nonprofits are two separate things, despite the Romney campaign's insistence that the latter should count for the former.

    And, yes, I believe you should pay taxes and be philanthropic because I don't think it's human nature to be greedy. That's your particular pathology.

    I can't imagine how empty your life must be when all you care about is making money.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 1:34 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    creyente saidActually this is a great example of everything the left has been saying on this forum.

    Corporations and the rich are not really paying their fair share in taxes.


    Blakes7 saidWhere's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.


    It's crony capitalism at its finest. The left often seems to be selective in their criticisms. Take someone like Christian who works at a charity - he advocates for charitable deductions yet the people who are most able to afford them are the rich - and yet he wants the rich to pay more taxes.

    It's human nature to be greedy but ...


    You're an idiot. Paying taxes and donating to nonprofits are two separate things, despite the Romney campaign's insistence that the latter should count for the former.

    And, yes, I believe you should pay taxes and be philanthropic because I don't think it's human nature to be greedy. That's your particular pathology.

    I can't imagine how empty your life must be when all you care about is making money.


    I'd agree that there are benefits to giving - and on a personal level I give with our without tax benefits for doing so. Why should the US government subsidize your largesse and that of your employer? The only one who is clearly greedy here is you - and that's what you take offense over.

    If you agree that they are separate however, do you agree then that the tax deductions for charitable contributions should and can be eliminated?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 2:26 PM GMT
    So at least we can agree that people on the left are consistent with the thought that all corporations (regardless of their politics) and the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes.

    Now as for the correlation between corporations and charities you know as well as the rest of us these are not the same thing.

    Additionally to eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions would reduce the amount of money going to these organizations, which would only result in an increased government spending on entitlement programs.

    In your desire to make a ridiculous point comparing the needs of the poor to the excesses of the rich you undermine the effort to reduce government.

    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    creyente saidActually this is a great example of everything the left has been saying on this forum.

    Corporations and the rich are not really paying their fair share in taxes.


    Blakes7 saidWhere's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.


    It's crony capitalism at its finest. The left often seems to be selective in their criticisms. Take someone like Christian who works at a charity - he advocates for charitable deductions yet the people who are most able to afford them are the rich - and yet he wants the rich to pay more taxes.

    It's human nature to be greedy but ...


    You're an idiot. Paying taxes and donating to nonprofits are two separate things, despite the Romney campaign's insistence that the latter should count for the former.

    And, yes, I believe you should pay taxes and be philanthropic because I don't think it's human nature to be greedy. That's your particular pathology.

    I can't imagine how empty your life must be when all you care about is making money.


    I'd agree that there are benefits to giving - and on a personal level I give with our without tax benefits for doing so. Why should the US government subsidize your largesse and that of your employer? The only one who is clearly greedy here is you - and that's what you take offense over.

    If you agree that they are separate however, do you agree then that the tax deductions for charitable contributions should and can be eliminated?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 2:54 PM GMT
    My god you people are all so stupid it hurts.

    No, there shouldnt be a higher tax on corporate profits.

    No, there shouldnt be any tax on corporate profits.

    Yes, the tax code is fucked up. 80% of the deductions in the tax code is utilized by 20% of the population (the top 20% of earners, I might add), who do you think it is intended to help?

    If we can get rid of those stupid ass deductions, then we wouldnt have any tax issues.

    /end thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 2:58 PM GMT
    creyente saidSo at least we can agree that people on the left are consistent with the thought that all corporations (regardless of their politics) and the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes.

    Now as for the correlation between corporations and charities you know as well as the rest of us these are not the same thing.

    Additionally to eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions would reduce the amount of money going to these organizations, which would only result in an increased government spending on entitlement programs.

    In your desire to make a ridiculous point comparing the needs of the poor to the excesses of the rich you undermine the effort to reduce government.


    Hardly. Again, it's the rich who benefit most from charitable deductions from which they can avoid taxes.

    I have never said that corporations or charities are the same thing, so please don't create straw men for your own weak arguments. The elimination of tax deductions would mean less money for whatever program XYZ that the program was incentivizing. Your argument is the same when it comes to anything with respect to corporate "loopholes" or subsidies.

    You also seem to think that most if not all spending by charities are to social programs that government would otherwise have to fund - when that has very far from the case if you even pause to consider what you can get charitable deductions for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 3:01 PM GMT
    Actually I agree with focusing on removing all the deductions however getting rid of them is going to take some time and face a lot of opposition.

    The only way to make sure that this actually gets done is to give the rich the incentive to want it to get done.

    Chainers saidMy god you people are all so stupid it hurts.

    No, there shouldnt be a higher tax on corporate profits.

    No, there shouldnt be any tax on corporate profits.

    Yes, the tax code is fucked up. 80% of the deductions in the tax code is utilized by 20% of the population (the top 20% of earners, I might add), who do you think it is intended to help?

    If we can get rid of those stupid ass deductions, then we wouldnt have any tax issues.

    /end thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 3:03 PM GMT
    creyente saidActually I agree with focusing on removing all the deductions however getting rid of them is going to take some time and face a lot of opposition.

    The only way to make sure that this actually gets done is to give the rich the incentive to want it to get done.

    Chainers saidMy god you people are all so stupid it hurts.

    No, there shouldnt be a higher tax on corporate profits.

    No, there shouldnt be any tax on corporate profits.

    Yes, the tax code is fucked up. 80% of the deductions in the tax code is utilized by 20% of the population (the top 20% of earners, I might add), who do you think it is intended to help?

    If we can get rid of those stupid ass deductions, then we wouldnt have any tax issues.

    /end thread.


    There isnt going to be an incentive for them to get it done. We are going to get it done by having a bipartisan group effort of congressmen and women who make decisions not based on how their church or crazy liberal hippy clan tells them, but on what is best for the country.

    AKA we are fucked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 4:06 PM GMT
    Actually it is you who keep making the straw man comparison between charities and corporations.

    They are two separate issues that you continue to equate to one another to prove your point and then step away from it to show differences. You can't have it both ways.

    You also seem to think that simply because you can donate to concerns that having nothing to do with poverty, that this nullifies my argument, it does not.

    Also, the fact that the rich are the ones that benefit most from the tax deductions supports my original statement: the left is consistent in it's thought process. We are not looking to punish people when they share the wealth.

    We simply want to make sure that they are carrying a fair share of the burden. Today that is not the case.

    riddler78 said
    creyente saidSo at least we can agree that people on the left are consistent with the thought that all corporations (regardless of their politics) and the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes.

    Now as for the correlation between corporations and charities you know as well as the rest of us these are not the same thing.

    Additionally to eliminate tax deductions for charitable contributions would reduce the amount of money going to these organizations, which would only result in an increased government spending on entitlement programs.

    In your desire to make a ridiculous point comparing the needs of the poor to the excesses of the rich you undermine the effort to reduce government.


    Hardly. Again, it's the rich who benefit most from charitable deductions from which they can avoid taxes.

    I have never said that corporations or charities are the same thing, so please don't create straw men for your own weak arguments. The elimination of tax deductions would mean less money for whatever program XYZ that the program was incentivizing. Your argument is the same when it comes to anything with respect to corporate "loopholes" or subsidies.

    You also seem to think that most if not all spending by charities are to social programs that government would otherwise have to fund - when that has very far from the case if you even pause to consider what you can get charitable deductions for.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 4:39 PM GMT
    creyente saidActually it is you who keep making the straw man comparison between charities and corporations.

    They are two separate issues that you continue to equate to one another to prove your point and then step away from it to show differences. You can't have it both ways.

    You also seem to think that simply because you can donate to concerns that having nothing to do with poverty, that this nullifies my argument, it does not.

    Also, the fact that the rich are the ones that benefit most from the tax deductions supports my original statement: the left is consistent in it's thought process. We are not looking to punish people when they share the wealth.

    We simply want to make sure that they are carrying a fair share of the burden. Today that is not the case.


    Huh? No, you're the one claiming I've made comparisons between charities and corporations - which is a straw man argument.

    Again, please do read this more slowly: I do think that charities and corporations are different. Fundamentally, those like yourself seem to think that you can tax the rich without any isolated consequences and you want to ensure that the gravy train continues on any given pet issue.

    It's interesting though how you've structured your rebuttal - "You also seem to think that simply because you can donate to concerns that having nothing to do with poverty". To be clear, I didn't introduce the subject of poverty. Is that the only role for charities or government in your mind? (see your earlier statement)

    It does however nullify your argument given the issues that government addresses are a significantly smaller subset of what charities do. So why forego these revenues with such absurd inefficiency? What's worse is that charities have far less transparency than even bureaucrats do. And given the arguments those like you who supposedly represent the left argue with it comes to healthcare, would it not be be far more efficient to deliver these services under the government instead of overlapping bureaucracies?

    What's even more galling is that while you acknowledge the benefit that is given to the wealthy, shouldn't philanthropy be about well I dunno, philanthropy instead of the associated reduced tax consequences? Do you believe that wealthy will abandon charities if they don't get the tax benefit?

    Besides, given all the noise the left makes about the supposed influence the rich have on government, why would you want to have a government deduction that's provided that allows the rich contribute to the issues they choose as opposed to the government that presumably acts to the benefit of all and those with the greatest need?

    If the left is consistent in its thinking, either you're not espousing that thinking or it's anything but consistent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 4:55 PM GMT
    Below is my original comment to Blakes7 which you responded to and tried to show a relationship between charitable contributions and paying taxes.

    I continue to argue that they are not the same thing.

    In your most recent post you are trying to bring health care into the picture to further muddy the waters.

    Why don't you just stop talking about the charity relationship if you think they should not be equated?

    Why not just address the issue that we were discussing which had nothing to do with charitable contributions or charities?

    You continue to avoid the main issue that I keep coming back to which is simply that the left is consistent on it's desire to see all corporations pay it's fair share in taxes. Paying your fair share does not mean you should not benefit from the same deductions as everyone else does.




    riddler78 said
    creyente saidActually this is a great example of everything the left has been saying on this forum.

    Corporations and the rich are not really paying their fair share in taxes.


    Blakes7 saidWhere's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.


    It's crony capitalism at its finest. The left often seems to be selective in their criticisms. Take someone like Christian who works at a charity - he advocates for charitable deductions yet the people who are most able to afford them are the rich - and yet he wants the rich to pay more taxes.

    It's human nature to be greedy but ...


    riddler78 said
    creyente saidActually it is you who keep making the straw man comparison between charities and corporations.

    They are two separate issues that you continue to equate to one another to prove your point and then step away from it to show differences. You can't have it both ways.

    You also seem to think that simply because you can donate to concerns that having nothing to do with poverty, that this nullifies my argument, it does not.

    Also, the fact that the rich are the ones that benefit most from the tax deductions supports my original statement: the left is consistent in it's thought process. We are not looking to punish people when they share the wealth.

    We simply want to make sure that they are carrying a fair share of the burden. Today that is not the case.


    Huh? No, you're the one claiming I've made comparisons between charities and corporations - which is a straw man argument.

    Again, please do read this more slowly: I do think that charities and corporations are different. Fundamentally, those like yourself seem to think that you can tax the rich without any isolated consequences and you want to ensure that the gravy train continues on any given pet issue.

    It's interesting though how you've structured your rebuttal - "You also seem to think that simply because you can donate to concerns that having nothing to do with poverty". To be clear, I didn't introduce the subject of poverty. Is that the only role for charities or government in your mind? (see your earlier statement)

    It does however nullify your argument given the issues that government addresses are a significantly smaller subset of what charities do. So why forego these revenues with such absurd inefficiency? What's worse is that charities have far less transparency than even bureaucrats do. And given the arguments those like you who supposedly represent the left argue with it comes to healthcare, would it not be be far more efficient to deliver these services under the government instead of overlapping bureaucracies?

    What's even more galling is that while you acknowledge the benefit that is given to the wealthy, shouldn't philanthropy be about well I dunno, philanthropy instead of the associated reduced tax consequences? Do you believe that wealthy will abandon charities if they don't get the tax benefit?

    Besides, given all the noise the left makes about the supposed influence the rich have on government, why would you want to have a government deduction that's provided that allows the rich contribute to the issues they choose as opposed to the government that presumably acts to the benefit of all and those with the greatest need?

    If the left is consistent in its thinking, either you're not espousing that thinking or it's anything but consistent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 5:02 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidWhere's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.


    ..because it's a Riddler topic. Clearly you're not that dense, are you? icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 6:36 PM GMT
    So sad... Contributions to nonprofits are tax-deductible because they foster social good. I know you don't care about other people but the majority of Americans do and our tax code reflects that.

    As for me being greedy, working for a nonprofit doesn't exempt me from any taxes. I pay the same as anyone in my income bracket, so as usual, you are inventing arguments not being advanced and displaying your typical epic ignorance. icon_lol.gif

    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    creyente saidActually this is a great example of everything the left has been saying on this forum.

    Corporations and the rich are not really paying their fair share in taxes.


    Blakes7 saidWhere's the outrage on the left?? The silence is deafening. Oh, wait, the founders of Google are cute and left wing, so it's ok, they get a pass.


    It's crony capitalism at its finest. The left often seems to be selective in their criticisms. Take someone like Christian who works at a charity - he advocates for charitable deductions yet the people who are most able to afford them are the rich - and yet he wants the rich to pay more taxes.

    It's human nature to be greedy but ...


    You're an idiot. Paying taxes and donating to nonprofits are two separate things, despite the Romney campaign's insistence that the latter should count for the former.

    And, yes, I believe you should pay taxes and be philanthropic because I don't think it's human nature to be greedy. That's your particular pathology.

    I can't imagine how empty your life must be when all you care about is making money.


    I'd agree that there are benefits to giving - and on a personal level I give with our without tax benefits for doing so. Why should the US government subsidize your largesse and that of your employer? The only one who is clearly greedy here is you - and that's what you take offense over.

    If you agree that they are separate however, do you agree then that the tax deductions for charitable contributions should and can be eliminated?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 6:41 PM GMT
    creyente saidBelow is my original comment to Blakes7 which you responded to and tried to show a relationship between charitable contributions and paying taxes.

    I continue to argue that they are not the same thing.

    In your most recent post you are trying to bring health care into the picture to further muddy the waters.

    Why don't you just stop talking about the charity relationship if you think they should not be equated?

    Why not just address the issue that we were discussing which had nothing to do with charitable contributions or charities?

    You continue to avoid the main issue that I keep coming back to which is simply that the left is consistent on it's desire to see all corporations pay it's fair share in taxes. Paying your fair share does not mean you should not benefit from the same deductions as everyone else does.


    Ah so you agree then that I never made a comparison between corporations and charities? Keep digging...

    I argued and repeat that it boils down to simple greed. There are too many on both the left and right who claim that everyone else's benefits should be cut and everyone else's taxes should be raised - as Christian and others do with charitable contributions.

    I haven't avoided the main issue at all - in fact, I addressed it directly. If corporations pay their fair share in taxes, then deductions should be eliminated including charitable contributions. These corporations are allowed deductions others are and that's sort of the problem given the various incentives that have been created in an attempt to address whatever government policy/stance of the day. Not only has this made taxes highly complicated but it means that corporations and the rich get to choose what pet projects get funded (whatever their social value) instead of more directly what government should.

    Further, different corporations get treated differently by left wing governments - like GE, or for instance the numerous loans to now bankrupt "green" companies from the DOE. So when you say the left is consistent in their thinking - either they don't or you aren't representing the left well at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 6:46 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidSo sad... Contributions to nonprofits are tax-deductible because they foster social good. I know you don't care about other people but the majority of Americans do and our tax code reflects that.

    As for me being greedy, working for a nonprofit doesn't exempt me from any taxes. I pay the same as anyone in my income bracket, so as usual, you are inventing arguments not being advanced and displaying your typical epic ignorance. icon_lol.gif


    And yet you benefit from the tax breaks given by government that you claim are out of virtue. You claim that you care for others and yet you feel you deserve to bribed in order to make charitable contributions as others need to be. And yet, I'm the one who is willing to donate to and support causes with or without the deduction.

    Why bother with charities if government can be supposedly be more efficient than funding so many different bureaucracies with less efficiency and transparency? Why would you want the rich to decide what areas of presumed social value to fund rather than government?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 7:39 PM GMT
    Again your knowledge of America is sorely lacking. You should really stick to commenting on Canadian issues.

    I do not "benefit from tax breaks", nor am I "bribed" to donate to causes I care about since I would do it anyway. And I donate a ton of time, far exceeding the value of what I donate monetarily and that's not deductible in any way. I also give to political causes which are not deductible.

    The rest of your questions are the typical arguing against shit you've made up that no one said or argued, so why bother responding?

    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidSo sad... Contributions to nonprofits are tax-deductible because they foster social good. I know you don't care about other people but the majority of Americans do and our tax code reflects that.

    As for me being greedy, working for a nonprofit doesn't exempt me from any taxes. I pay the same as anyone in my income bracket, so as usual, you are inventing arguments not being advanced and displaying your typical epic ignorance. icon_lol.gif


    And yet you benefit from the tax breaks given by government that you claim are out of virtue. You claim that you care for others and yet you feel you deserve to bribed in order to make charitable contributions as others need to be. And yet, I'm the one who is willing to donate to and support causes with or without the deduction.

    Why bother with charities if government can be supposedly be more efficient than funding so many different bureaucracies with less efficiency and transparency? Why would you want the rich to decide what areas of presumed social value to fund rather than government?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 11, 2012 8:15 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidAgain your knowledge of America is sorely lacking. You should really stick to commenting on Canadian issues.

    I do not "benefit from tax breaks", nor am I "bribed" to donate to causes I care about since I would do it anyway. And I donate a ton of time, far exceeding the value of what I donate monetarily and that's not deductible in any way. I also give to political causes which are not deductible.

    The rest of your questions are the typical arguing against shit you've made up that no one said or argued, so why bother responding?


    If you feel the tax benefits for charitable contributions are so irrelevant to yourself, is it your fear then that this is the only reasons others do so?

    If not, then why would you object to the elimination of the tax incentive which primarily benefits the rich above all others? You can bluster all you want, but ultimately your advocacy for your own pet deductions is more about your own selfish views than objectivity.