Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Businesses Google

Eric Schmidt: Google Will Continue Investing In UK Even If Taxes Raised 122

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the kinder-side-of-globalization dept.
DavidGilbert99 writes "Eric Schmidt hasn't changed his stance on Google's tax policies in the UK but has said that even if the tax legislation changes in the UK it will continue to invest in the country because 'we love the UK.' Gushing about its relationship with the UK, Schmidt said: 'Google will invest in the UK no matter what you guys do, because the UK is just too important for us. The citizens are too important for us and in our view we provide too much good.'" (Beware the auto-playing video advertisements). This after writing an Op-Ed lamenting the complexity of international taxes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eric Schmidt: Google Will Continue Investing In UK Even If Taxes Raised

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah, no shit! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serviscope_minor (664417) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @11:25AM (#43794949) Journal

    So, google isn't going to throw a hissy fit and back out of a 2.5 trillion dollar economy. Say it ain't so!

    Remember all this stuff is on taxes on profit! This is the stuff they get to keep after all expenses come out. So it's merely a question of pocketing a bit less of a vast amount of money.

    Amazing they're not thinking of leaving, really.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      That's not the point. UK politicians claim to be scared shitless of big companies like Google leaving if we dare to make them pay their taxes, but not Google is basically inviting us to take their (or rather our) cash. This excuse is no longer valid.

      • Not inviting, but being honest about corporate behaviors. In the vast majority of cases, taxes for companies come entirely out of profit. If they make a profit in a region, taxes don't change that. And since taxes hit competitors(well, not apple apparently) too, it doesn't affect the marketplace dramatically. It gets a little fuzzy when stock markets, par values, and yield ratios come in, but the best understanding I've got is that taxes still play second fiddle to consumer habits for most industries.

    • Yes. Everyone knows that all rich people liquidate their profit into cash and immediately burn it all in large heaps on golden-plated yachts. These Richie-Richersons! They just cannot help polluting our skies with their filthy money can they?

  • If corporations are people then, as a person, I too have decided only to pay the amount of tax I see fit. Seriously, pay the full rate on income to the nation that income was earned in or GTFO. Same goes for Apple, Exxon, GE and the rest.
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Well, to be fair, they don't tax 100% of your income, at least not where I come from (Canada). The first $10,000 is untaxed, then if I buy some RRSPs (retirement savings) that goes untaxed. I can get deductions for some medical expenses, bus passes, sports for the kids, and countless other deductions. If your spouse doesn't work, you don't pay tax on their $10,000 of untaxable income either. I've heard that in the US, the interest on your mortgage is deductible. That can be a pretty large sum of money rig
      • by Rougement (975188)
        Stack up your "tax games" against the claim that Mitt Romney didn't pay any income tax for 10 years. That claim may or may not be true but it certainly isn't outside of the realms of possibility, given the way the tax code is.
      • by Malc (1751)

        then if I buy some RRSPs (retirement savings) that goes untaxed

        That's not true. You're just delaying when you pay tax, and hoping that you will be in a lower tax bracket by then to see the benefit of saving in the programme.

      • by stymy (1223496)
        In Canada, you can write off 3% of your house's value as an expense due to depreciation. If you do this, the CRA will hate you, they'll flag your account and they will check everything you submit, but it is legal. I know this from a fairly high-ranking friend in the CRA, and I've been filing this for over 5 years now. No trouble yet, and my accountant also assures me it's legal.
        The reason they flag the account is that if you sell your house for more than
        (original value) - (depreciation you filed)
        you'll
    • Good! Just renounce your citizenship in the US/Canada/UK/etc. and get a passport and citizenship in a place that actually -wants- you like Paraguay, The Dominican Republic, St. Kitts or Dominica, generally just takes some $$$$$ and/or time depending on what you want. Get a citizenship in one place, live in another and incorporate your business in a good jurisdiction with minimal regulations and next to no taxes and you can have a better life and never pay income tax again!
    • by Anonymous Coward

      You also have the option of paying more tax than you are legally required to. Obviously you'll be doing that right?

      If you don't exploit all the loopholes you can then you're a fool and your shareholders will crucify you. Politicians need to stop huffing and puffing about how terrible these greedy corporations are and just simplify the tax legislation and remove all the dodges.

      Of course that might have a negative impact on the companies that they have financial interests in, so they'll have to decide whether

      • > If you don't exploit all the loopholes you can then you're a fool and your shareholders will crucify you.

        And yet somehow it's okay to pay lobbyists

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by thomasw_lrd (1203850)

      CEO's don't dictate taxes, politicians dictate taxes. This isn't a new problem, it has always been a problem, its just that now, the governments are going broke from lower tax revenues, and they are squawking for more money.

      Corporations do not pay taxes at any level. Raise taxes on a corp, and they raise their prices. That is why countries should get rid of income taxes, corporate taxes and the like. Go to a universal sales tax. Don't tax food and other necessities (what constitutes a necessity can be

      • by Rougement (975188)
        That's an awful idea. Poor people will spend every cent they earn and pay sales tax on that expenditure. Rich people will not spend every cent, and so will pay a lower rate of tax than the poor. Dreadful. As for the idea that food, etc would be tax exempt - do you really trust politicians, especially on the right, to look out for the needs of the less well off? They've been doing an awful job in that regard for generations.
        • No I don't trust politicans at all, that's why I implied a Constitutional Amendment in my post. (I'm not sure how that works in any country but the US, which is why I didn't state it that way). An amendment to the Consitution would be very hard for the politicians to break, and if it received the popular support that it would require to make it the law of the land, no politician in his/her right mind would attempt to break it in our generation. They would be hopefully be kicked out of office so quick, th

          • by Rougement (975188)
            The sticking point is the question of what is tax exempt, I don't see how that can be taken care of with an amendment. Do you list everything exempt? All food? How about chocolate? What about fuel oil? Gasoline? Utilities? Cars? Health care? Don't think for a second that there aren't politicians in the US who would push hard for the only tax exempt things to be one raw potato per week and maybe some drinking water, if the claimant has proof that all local puddles have dried up.
            • Any food (excluding alcohol, acutally I don't care about this one. I drink a six pack a week, and a bottle of crown twice a year, I'll pay taxes on that) is tax exempt, gas, utilities, health care is all tax-free. Cars up to a certain amount are tax free (say 30k?, we can let the politicans argue over that value, they need something to argue about). Internet should probably be tax free. Set different limits based on the broad category it's in. Any computer over 2k, tax it. Any motorcycle, boat, four-w

              • There is actually an even easier way to do this:

                1) Make the Tax flat.. no exceptions for any "type" including food, health.

                2) Only tax new goods and services: used car-> no tax

                3) At a local level figure out what a family/person pays for the bare necessities: enough food, rent, basic healthcare, transportation costs etc.. every month (Have them publish the formula). Then figure the amount of tax there would be on that. Electronically transfer that amount every month in the form of a prebate to
        • by cayenne8 (626475)

          That's an awful idea. Poor people will spend every cent they earn and pay sales tax on that expenditure. Rich people will not spend every cent, and so will pay a lower rate of tax than the poor. Dreadful. As for the idea that food, etc would be tax exempt - do you really trust politicians, especially on the right, to look out for the needs of the less well off?

          It is not a bad idea.

          How would the poor be taxed to death on everything they owed, I mean, if they only have enough money for food (and I say I'd

          • by manicb (1633645)

            Anything spent outside of what you need to live, should be subject to tax.

            Everyone should have some skin in the game when it comes to taxation and supporting the basic services the govt needs to provide.

            "what you need to live" is a surprisingly subjective term. After all, do people really *need* to live? What quality of life justifies such a need? Basic sustenance may not provide such a quality of life.

            • by cayenne8 (626475)

              "what you need to live" is a surprisingly subjective term. After all, do people really *need* to live? What quality of life justifies such a need? Basic sustenance may not provide such a quality of life.

              It is quite simple.

              1. What do people need to live? - Food and shelter are the basics to allow someone to live and be a part of society. Some may argue freely provided medical tx, I'm not on that bandwagon, but that is an arguable point of contention.

              2. What quality of life juistifies such a need? - What

              • by manicb (1633645)

                If you feel so strongly about people being responsible for the circumstances of their own birth, why do you grant people a right to survival?

                • by cayenne8 (626475)

                  If you feel so strongly about people being responsible for the circumstances of their own birth, why do you grant people a right to survival?

                  I really have no idea really what you're trying to say here...?

                  Responsible for own birth? Not sure how that's possible...you parents fuck and you appear, seems THEY are responsible for your birth....?

                  I'd say you have a right to try to survive, I dunno if survival itself is a natural right of nature, but the struggle to try to survive is I suppose.

        • by 0123456 (636235)

          That's an awful idea. Poor people will spend every cent they earn and pay sales tax on that expenditure.

          Since poor people get most of the benefits the government hands out, it's only fair that they should pay for them.

          • > Since poor people get most of the benefits the government hands out, it's only fair that they should pay for them.

            Yes indeed it makes lots of sense to give people money and then take it back from them!

            Would it not be much less hassle and paperwork to simply not give them the money that they would have paid in taxes?

            Or perhaps you like the idea of big government churn?

      • by Pecisk (688001)

        I want that stuff you smoke to dream about "no IRS" world of yours. Really.

        Or you must be libertarian :) That explains everything (no offense).

        • I don't subscribe to any particular political idealogy, I admit the idea might be far-fetched, but there is no better way to work out problems than posting on Slashdot, and having the hell beat out of them.

          It needs a lot of refining.

          So refine it, and get it made into law.

    • by 91degrees (207121)
      Corporations aren't people.

      Corporate personhood is an American concept and only applies to certain situations.
  • That should be: "Eric Schmidt: Google Will Continue Investing In UK Especially If Taxes Razed".

  • Thanks for the warning, but the solution is very simple: stop linking to IBTimes.

    To the best of my knowledge it is just IBTimes that does this (if you stop the video they wait a little bit and then resume it), and yet slashdot has recently become very fond of promoting IBTimes by linking them in their story summaries.

  • Of course a large corporation like Google is going to continue investing in the UK and the rest of western Europe no matter how silly their tax policies are. Corporations have a responsibility to turn a profit for their shareholders and walking away from a jurisdiction that might be slightly less profitable, but still profitable is certainly not in the best interests of Google's shareholders.
  • by shri (17709) <{shriramc} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @11:53AM (#43795261) Homepage

    Why in gods name do you guys accept submissions from or linked to sites which play annoying ads? Yeah, I get it, most of /. users browse with adblockers of all sorts, but it is just horrible if you have to accept a submission and then add a disclaimer to it -- makes you guys look desperate.

  • If the UK is so important, then perhaps it's time for them to consider penalties for creative accounting that does not provide the full amount of revenue.

    The more hidden and convoluted it is, the higher the penalty.

  • Aww bless,
    Eric is willing to consider paying taxes like the rest of us. The man is a saint.

  • by 200_success (623160) on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @04:34PM (#43797833)
    What he means is, "The UK can raise its tax rate all it wants. It makes no difference to Google, since we will structure our business deals [independent.ie] so that they are not subject to UK tax anyway."
    • Parent FTW! Now why did I have to scroll all the way to the bottom of this thread to see a comment pointing out the obvious translation of this story.

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak

Working...