Eric Schmidt: Google Will Continue Investing In UK Even If Taxes Raised 122
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.
Can't move if the UK(or other) claims you first. (Score:2)
Those places exist at the pleasure of larger countries that could just take them out and end their status as tax domiciles.
How long until those places end up with a surprise loss of connectivity that is complete, followed by a takeover of the area? This could apply even moreso to places that are near the US given the overwhelming weight of the military.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't want to pay taxes either. What does that have to do with anything? No one wants to pay them. And the people that tell you they're fine with it are liars or up to something. Pretty sure this guy is both.
Re:Apple interview (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people have what is called "Enlightened Self Interest". For that reason I do not lie when I say I am fine with paying taxes. I derive direct benefit from them. Not a month after I paid my property tax the county used that money to fix the roads I travel on to my home. I have no trouble paying for the civilization I enjoy.
You are projecting your short sighted greed onto others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be fine with that change as well.
Property tax on a car sounds very regressive, since those with lower incomes will often need to have two cars just to have one functional.
Re: (Score:2)
A tax on a car in this manner is usually pegged to the value of the car, so even if someone were to need multiple cars becuase they were afraid that one crappy car is unreliable, the value of multiple really crappy cars would be very low. I have had beaters that I paid $15 on my ad valorum, I have had newer cars that cost $500 ( for ~$30000 car) .
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that makes some sense.
Do companies also pay this tax? Or is this just a tax that the middle class end up paying?
Re: (Score:2)
haha, companies dont pay shit. They depreciate assets.
My state is changing away from this ad valorum to a new system where you pay a one time tax at purchase of a vehicle. It will end up working out that people who frequently buy cars will pay a substantial amount more than people who tend to drive one vehicle for a long time. This is also pegged to value, so the more expensive cars will have a higher associated tax. It is most likely that this will then be deductible on itemization from federal taxes, so 3
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike that idea too. You want people to buy more new cars, because those new cars move more money around and the relatively recent used car market gets a nice influx of decent used cars to choose from for people with less money when the people who have more money flip their cars. The fewer new cars turned over, the more expensive it gets to buy something decent in the second-hand market.
Further, if you want to get gas guzzlers and low tech vehicles off the road faster, you need to encourage turn over.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree.
A far simpler tax system is going to be killed by those who work in that field and those who take advantage of the current one.
My simple answer would be to exclude the first X of income from tax, let X equal the median income. Then tax the rest at some set rate. No deductions of any kind shape or form and all money in is income. The source matters not at all, a gift is income in the same way that found money would be or investments or a paycheck.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether a particular tax at a particular level causes inappropriate economic disruption or hardship. Ultimately we need to tax where the money is, while balancing the degree of inevitable disruption and hardship with wisdom.
Of course, people avoid saying that out loud -- in America, surely it will be only a few nanoseconds before some whiner equates the federal gov't with a famous bank robber. Really the wise should not fear for being emulated by bank robbers, even if fools will insist eve
Re: (Score:2)
People want something to call their own. This provides a sense of security and pride that no government program can provide.
I don't want to get down on programs, there is certainly a need for cooperative programs of some form, but I think that ownership gives people a personal stake in their country and their society in general. If everything I have is simply on some sort of loan or rent from someone else, there's much less incentive to improve things on a personal level.
I see this every day in my own com
Re: (Score:3)
What have the Romans ever done for us?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
While you are theoretically correct, I bet at hefty portion of the taxes we pay seep away into pointless offices, salaries of lazy public officials, funding for ineffective projects and just the plain old deep pockets of greedy politicians, aka corruption. I fact, so much of the taxes we pay trickle away, that even though we live in the wealthiest and highest taxed countries in the world that what remains of our money does not seem to be enough to fund our opaque and immensely complex state. So the state be
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, I get the benefit every time I go to work without warlords stealing my car. Each time I don't have to step over the starving to get to my office and each time I make it home without being assaulted. That is just the stuff from having a stable society.
So you think schools and police are the only things you need? You don't think you need everyone to be educated to some minimum level?
Your neighbors would just use that force as an army and take your stuff. If you paid in, maybe they would just use i
Re:Apple interview (Score:5, Insightful)
Because then we would have freeloaders, like you.
Little to no benefit? So how is it that your posts are getting here again?
You do not drive? You do not have property to protect from fire or theft? You do not benefit from an orderly society? You gain nothing from an educated society?
I think you are a liar, since that is just the far simpler explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can actually say no to all these questions then please feel free to move to a country that provides none of those.
Don't worry about making more than $90k/year and the IRS coming for their share since you don't need to come back they can't force you to pay.
Re: (Score:1)
My observation during the past decade in the US is that those clamoring for higher taxation generally fall into 3 categories: 1) Already so wealthy that higher income taxes won't hurt a bit-this group is also usually very dishonest about the situation; 2) already taking more out than they are putting in so higher taxes won't affect them one bit - you called them freeloaders; 3) those who will get hurt but believe that the increase will only affect group 1 and then can't figure out why it also affect themsel
Re: (Score:2)
I fit in none of those.
Increase taxation would hurt me, but that is ok. I am totally fine with that outcome so long as our civilization can do what it must. I just voted for a property tax increase that will impact me directly. My towns schools need the money and as they spend about 80% of it on instruction I can't see how they are wasting it. Things I like cost money, and I don't mind paying for them.
It matters not if it impacts his life or not, Mr.Buffet is correct in that he should pay a higher percentag
Re: (Score:1)
If Buffet wanted to pay more in taxes he could, he could declare his investment income as regular income or he could simply overpay every year. He doesn't because he doesn't really want to. He is smart enough to realize that taxing the income of the 1%er at 100% won't solve the spending issues in DC. He also knows that every time we raise taxes on "the wealthy" everybody gets included as well.
And by "instruction", do you mean faculty salary or faculty and staff salary? Are benefits included? Is that coverin
Re: (Score:3)
If Buffet wanted to pay more in taxes he could, he could declare his investment income as regular income or he could simply overpay every year. He doesn't because he doesn't really want to. He is smart enough to realize that taxing the income of the 1%er at 100% won't solve the spending issues in DC. He also knows that every time we raise taxes on "the wealthy" everybody gets included as well.
Warren Buffet also happens to have several lines of business that greatly benefit from the types of regulations he pushes.
Ex: He pushes for higher estate taxes
1. He owns businesses that sell life insurance policies, which are a tax shelter used in estate planning.
2. Some family businesses failed to plan ahead sufficiently for estate taxes, resulting in them being sold at bargain prices to pay the tax. Buffet has profited form the purchases of such companies.
http://grassrootsne.com/warren-buffett-
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In my area home prices have not increased with inflation. Nor is the bigest increase in administration. It is actually in education costs. Meaning teachers and materials.
There is no need to wonder, inflation means more money is needed for the same material and teachers. I get a raise every year, and I am sure any good teacher demands one as well. Fail to pay and they will go to those who are willing to pay. The same thing you or I would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Damned straight. You rock.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not go that far, but thanks for agreeing.
Slashdot has too many small minded folks who can't see how we all benefit from these things. A big one that people forget is why you can hire someone who can read and write for $9/hr. That is because we made that education free to the person being educated and our businesses all benefit by being able to hire those educated workers for very little.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I had an appendectomy when I was 15 or so. That would cost, on the private healthcare market, something like £30,000. Free on the NHS, obviously. I had another operation on the NHS a few years later- that must have been about £20,000. I've also used A&E for broken bones on 3 occasions- that's about another £5,000. My education (all state-funded), allegedly cost £8000 (according to a quick Google search), which for 14 years or so would therefore have cost £112,000. Have I pa
Re: (Score:2)
How are you defining gets back more from their taxes than they pay in? Are you trying to compare what you pay in tax to how much you think you could buy the same services on a voluntary basis?
For example you pay $200 for fire but you could get an Fire Insurance policy for $150?
How do you compare the taxes you pay for services you don't use? Is that just a huge negative section which drags the overall evaluation of
Re: (Score:2)
Your neighbors have kids right?
You employ people who were once children?
You benefit from having an educated society?
That last one is being eroded in the USA as the teaparty and other ignorance worshippers gain prominence.
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to bet most tax payers.
From sanitation to highways to having a peaceful society. Without the last one no business is even possible. Meaning they would not even have the money on which they are being taxed without it.
I doubt you could teach anyone to read with that attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't mind paying taxes, then why not simply abolish taxation and then you can voluntarily donate your money to the government? If you derive a direct benefit from them, why don't you continue to pay your taxes (voluntarily) and let those of us who receive little to no benefit from them not pay them, instead of condoning violence to force people to pay for things that you want?
It's extremely hard for me to believe that you don't derive any benefits from... 1. Living in a relatively stable society. 2. Public sanitation 3. Police and Fire protection. 4. The activities of agencies such as those devoted to environmental protection, automobile safety, and so on. The fact that you are able to post on the Internet means that you're reaping benefits from society whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.
Re: (Score:3)
1 and 3 are not the same thing at all.
2. is only partially billed directly. Much of public sanitation is clean streets and enforcement of dumping/sewage laws.
4 you cannot live without. You would likely already be dead or maimed without or have family in that situation.
In short, grow up kiddo.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. You really have to specify which program you're talking about.
People didn't die in the streets before many of these programs, although progress has made some of them a lot more important due to industrial scale pollution, for instance. As for the rest, it's arguable. Equal opportunity programs are nice and all, but again, no one was dying without them. Scientific research is a personal favorite of mine, but again, while it might contribute to extending my life, the lack wasn't ending my li
Re: (Score:3)
People very well were being killed by employers when we lacked any sort of regulation for working conditions. The Jungle was not about where you meat comes from.
Government can do a great job, this insistance that it can only do mediocre work is why it does mediocre work. People who elect those who say things like this are insane, would you hire a worker who stated your company could only do mediocre work? If you want to see an excellent job being done by government go to places where they expect that from g
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how insisting that the government is mediocre actually makes it become mediocre. The government is mediocre because it works based on politics and because it attempts to be a default and generic provider of all services that people demand of them.
You might blame the failure of certain government services on politics and shift the blame to political parties. "The Republicans are breaking Obamacare, or the Tories are going to destroy the NHS,". However, political parties ARE the government sy
Re: (Score:2)
You get the outcome you expect. Government is not exempted from that.
The government is always the insurer of last resort. That means companies will try to exploit that. This is how those private roads operate. There is no getting around it. We must have roads. You can't simply accept that there are no roads. It just is not an option.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the issue. You think there will be no roads if the government doesn't make them happen. I'd argue that is simply a mindset where you aren't truly considering how the world would work without the government involved, you're simply assuming it can't work.
Roads happen because they are needed. Humanity isn't just going to sit down and not create roads. People need to go places, and if someone didn't build a road, someone else would. People don't expect the government to build them driveways for thei
Re: (Score:2)
Go to somalia, check out the system your propose.
Your idea is as likely to work as communism. People will not act as you expect.
Roads will not be built, as the first person to build one would never be paid. Others would simply connect around his toll booths.
Government and yes the threat of force is used to solve fundamental problems like this because it must be. Otherwise no one would pay as they get nothing unless everyone else also plays along.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, while I think the majority of people in the world would prefer to pay as little tax as possible, you'd not get that impression from a seemingly large (or at least vocal) contingent of slashdot users. Some of them seem to think that the government can do MUCH better with your money than you can,
Re: (Score:2)
Some of them seem to think that the government can do MUCH better with your money than you can, better deeds, more efficiently,etc.
I love how you translate: "country needs government and therefore taxes to operate" to "these people believe that the government can do much better with your money than you can".
Re: (Score:2)
Please read my ENTIRE post, I didn't say that.
I was posting this section of it, more in part to threads yesterday and other times how people were saying it was somehow MORAL to pay as much tax as you can. Often they were in favor of making people pay more than was needed to operate on a basic level of common services everyone need
Re: (Score:3)
Please read my ENTIRE post, I didn't say that.
Well, I did. The rest of the post seemed to be about how you thought taxes should work. That didn't seem to have any bearing on the first bit.
They also were promoting beyond govt funding needs, to basically redistribution to others that weren't as lucky or talented or hard working as the rest.
Some degree of redistribution is required. Some people are simply not capable of looking after themselves. If you don't basically hand money to them you'll have to hand mor
Re: (Score:2)
To the truly infirmed/disabled or elderly, sure I'm good for a safety net.
I don't call that redistribution of wealth, caring for the disabled or elderly.
But anyone else that is able-bodied, if they don't want to work and, instead, c
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he said that at all.
If you define the government by a set number of services that it was created specifically to manage, then you can say that the taxes are something that we simply have to deal with to have those services operate properly.
If, on the other hand, you state that every problem you come across should be fixed with a government program, even if there are other options, then you most certainly are stating, in effect, "the government is better at spending your money than you are."
No
Re: (Score:3)
You've repeated the same thing!
If, on the other hand, you state that every problem you come across should be fixed with a government program, even if there are other options, then you most certainly are stating, in effect, "the government is better at spending your money than you are."
There is a whole continuum between limited, pre-defined services and fixing every problem.
Some problems are best solved by individuals and the free market. Other problems are best solved by the government because the whole sys
I'm more than fine with it... (Score:2)
Wanting to pay tax and "being fine with it" are two completely different states of mind, I don't want to pay tax but I'm fine with it because the alternative is to abandon civilization. Willingly doing something against your immediate desires in the hope that it will provide for future needs is the hallmark of an adult. If it wasn't I would stay here and chat rather than go to work....and chat.
Billionaires are people too, and the US seems to have quite a few who think billionaire
Yeah, no shit! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Silly people and their profit! (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope I speak for more than just me when I say: "huh?".
Re: (Score:2)
easily explained by a bad search result on medication interaction...!!
When did CEOs get to dictate tax policy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they flag the account is that if you sell your house for more than
(original value) - (depreciation you filed)
you'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
> 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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Corporate personhood is an American concept and only applies to certain situations.
Misprint (Score:2)
That should be: "Eric Schmidt: Google Will Continue Investing In UK Especially If Taxes Razed".
(Beware the auto-playing video advertisements) (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
Annoying Ads Disclaimer (Score:3)
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.
Good. Now try without loopholes (Score:2)
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.
God Bless Google (Score:1)
Aww bless,
Eric is willing to consider paying taxes like the rest of us. The man is a saint.
Translation (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Context matters (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, in discussing things, people often discount possibilities that are considered to have an extremely low probability that are also irrelevant to the context of the conversation, so when the context is questions about Google response to potential tax increases in the UK, "Google will invest in the UK no matter what you guys do" doesn't, to a reasonable listener, equate to a commitment to staying engaged in the UK if the UK suddenly, rather than raising taxes that Google would have to pay, instead adopts Chinese-style massive political censorship that Google would have to actively cooperate with the authorities to enforce in order to be allowed to continue operating in the UK.
Re: (Score:1)
I see no proof to think otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
How exactly are they sucking an economy dry? What are they removing from the British (or any) economy? Why should a company pay attention to "community", whatever that means?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone doubts that, or that Schmidt really expects his comments to be interpreted in any other context. Schmidt is just saying that none of the outcomes that are plausible enough to even consider in discussion from the current tax policy debate will change the operating context in a way that would make "leaving the UK" better for Google than "staying in the UK".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Context matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless, it's a stupid thing to say. A company like Google threatening to leave is a good way to shape tax policy in its favor. But coming right out and saying that they won't leave makes it a lot easier for the UK government to raise their taxes.
That's a very simplistic take on things. The fact is that government is very used to people threatening to take their business away if they don't get their own way, and it's pretty obvious that it doesn't happen in practice. It's not a good way to shape tax policy, it's a transparent and dishonest way. Perhaps as a government you'd actually rather work with companies that don't just routinely lie and throw temper tantrums?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google has no chance in China, because they're not Chinese.
Either via corruption through access to local govts, or outright protectionism from the national govt, Google will never get a far chance in China. Google has no incentive to keep up the nice, polite coating of public lies required to do business in PRC controlled territory. They just told the world how it really is, what it really is like to do business in China. (Which should be of no surprise to anyone who's had an even passing business relations
Re: (Score:3)
excuse me, but do you really think the 'market' is fair ? The invisible hand of the market is attached to a lunatic, wielding a large bloody axe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True enough. The Chinese model has been, we'll license from you, but only if you build it here and have at least have half of the people working on it at all levels be Chinese. Then those trained PRC citizens are moved into local and/or state-run operations with their experience and they simply start doing whatever it was they previously licensed themselves and closing out external competition in that segment as well.
If GM is doing okay, it's because China needs to learn something from them. They'll be s