Google Shifted $23 Billion To Tax Haven Bermuda in 2017, Filing Shows (reuters.com) 210
schwit1 shares a report: Google moved 19.9 billion euros ($22.7 billion) through a Dutch shell company to Bermuda in 2017, as part of an arrangement that allows it to reduce its foreign tax bill, according to documents filed at the Dutch Chamber of Commerce. The amount channeled through Google Netherlands Holdings BV was around 4 billion euros more than in 2016, the documents, filed on Dec. 21, showed. For more than a decade the arrangement has allowed Google owner Alphabet to enjoy an effective tax rate in the single digits on its non-U.S. profits, around a quarter the average tax rate in its overseas markets. The subsidiary in the Netherlands is used to shift revenue from royalties earned outside the United States to Google Ireland Holdings, an affiliate based in Bermuda, where companies pay no income tax.
Don't be evil (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Every year that Google has existed, it has sold you out. Everyone, every year. No exceptions.
In related news, 2019 is the Chinese Year of the Stealth Project.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it was when they went public.
Once a company goes public, EVERYTHING it does is about raising the stock price. It would sacrifice employees to the pagan gods if shareholders liked that.
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the problem is that there are so many forces that will disadvantage a company for doing the right thing. A company doesn't grow with having a big Money Bin, that is just sitting there. The most successful company tries to put every dollar gain back into the system to grow the company and expand further. Unfortunately the progressive tax structure slows growth of a company, by in essence taking money it could be reinvesting it and forcing it to be liquid, for a period of time so it can be paid in t
Re: (Score:1)
poor google, these progressive taxes have totally prevented it from "growing" into a nearly trillion dollar company.
Your argument falls flat on it's face. Companies like Google, write the tax laws, and prevent small companies from getting tax breaks, while they eat them up themselves. Your whole economic worldview is complete bullshit.
You can't sit here and talk about companies struggling to grow, when the companies in question are Google, Amazon, Apple, Exxon.
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Actions should have consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
For the avoidance of any doubt I do not condone arson, larceny or other illegal/antisocial actions.
That said, I would dearly love the following scenarios to play out:
A major fire to break out at an Amazon warehouse or Google office. When they call the (taxpayer funded) fire services they get told "oh we only operate the phones here - you'll have to source the water from Ireland, the crews from Luxembourg, the appliances from Bermuda... after all that's where you operate isn't it? You don't want to get involved with civil society - well provide your own protection through self funding then!"
Similarly for break-ins/vandalisation at Facebook's offices ... "here's a crime number for your insurers... we'll get back to you when we've dealt with incidents affecting those who do engage with civil society and contribute to the common good".
Or roadworks right outside the offices of Vodafone, Oracle, Microsoft - started and then de-prioritised to serve ordinary folk who pay their way - "yes, we'll get back to fixing your road in due course...".
After all disrupting these organisations wouldn't be a big loss because they don't pay much into society now anyway.
The "I'll keep whatever I can and get everyone else to cover externalities and emergencies" rejection of paying the same taxes as others do should come back to bite them when they discover they're neither all powerful nor an island sufficient unto themselves.
Now, whether the government provides good levels of service for the taxation raised is a separate debate; certainly there are many areas where it could do better. Enriching yourselves by demanding the same benefits as everyone whilst doing everything to avoid the common obligations is the behaviour of an antisocial bully.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
"Employers should not be taxed"
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I would disagree (without gratuitous insults).
By the same token, absentee employers should get no benefits. If they see no obligation to share society's costs then society should see no obligation in providing support or dealing with their externalities.
If anyone went to these companies and demanded that they provide goods without payment they'd say 'No' -- yet they are quite happy to demand the converse situation.
The taxes pai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Actions should have consequences (Score:2)
You may well have that right as an individual. Your limited liability company, on the other hand, has NO rights at all. Because rights are for humans not for corporations.
Re:Actions should have consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
A major fire to break out at an Amazon warehouse or Google office. When they call the (taxpayer funded) fire services they get told "oh we only operate the phones here - you'll have to source the water from Ireland, the crews from Luxembourg, the appliances from Bermuda... after all that's where you operate isn't it? You don't want to get involved with civil society - well provide your own protection through self funding then!"
What do local fire departments and roads have to do with federal income taxes on foreign earnings? You do know the latter doesn't pay for the former, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How you can tell (Score:2)
I canâ(TM)t tell if youâ(TM)re a big statist or a rabid Libertarian.
It's easy to tell! I'll give you a general guide.
If they are advocating a course of action that hurts others, they are statists.
If they are telling everyone to leave someone alone, they are libertarians.
I'd say telling everyone to set fire to Google and Amazon properties falls pretty clearly in the "Fascist Statist" camp.
Re: (Score:2)
After all disrupting these organisations wouldn't be a big loss because they don't pay much into society now anyway.
Ya, fuck all those employees. Oh, and the people using their mapping software, and any other services millions ( if not billions ) use each and every day.
Sarcasm aside, I get the outrage; it seems as if google isn't paying "their fair share". What is their fair share? What's yours, for that matter? How are you sure you're paying your fair share?
Re: (Score:2)
How are you sure you're paying your fair share?
For one thing, I suspect none of the individuals here on /. use a tax haven to reduce their effective tax rate to zero.
I take every effort to reduce my tax, very legally. So does Google, very legally.
My gripe is that large corporations have access to tax havens. If I declare no income in Australia, but each week withdraw $5,000 from an overseas account via an ATM, the Australian Tax Office will eventually knock on my door and ask me to demonstrate how I maintain my standard of living while not submitting a
Re: (Score:2)
The employees use the schools, roads, and other tax-buying goods and services, and the employees pay taxes. Google, at least in the US, also pays employment tax for its employees. Why should jurisdictions where Google doesn't even have a presence take Google's money?
Re: (Score:3)
The difficulty is, this isn't a Google problem. It's a worldwide problem. Basically every large multinational corporation does something similar.
Selectively punishing individual companies will do little to nothing to solve the overall problem. Such selective punishment basically encourages companies to try to cut individual deals with nations to avoid such selective punishment. That's a really, really bad precedent to set.
What we really need are international standards for determining revenue/expense al
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except when they play accounting games to shift those revenues to overseas offices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying Google and most corporations play accounting games that are on the ragged edge of legality and provability.
Re:Actions should have consequences (Score:4, Informative)
RTFS/RTFA - this is on overseas revenue, not US revenue. They pay 100% of their required taxes; the fact they can shift their overseas (not US-taxable) revenue around to lower tax rates has no bearing on the US revenue.
Not exactly. This is about avoiding (legally) US corporate income taxes on foreign income, so it is about US revenue. And EU revenue, since it also avoids EU taxation. It's certainly not revenue that would pay for fire departments or roads in California, though.
It's worth pointing out here that the US practice of taxing foreign incomes of US companies -- on top of whatever the country in which the money is earned might tax it -- is a weird one, which no other major countries practice. It's the reason that tech companies have kept trillions parked offshore, because bringing it back would require paying taxes on it.
It's also worth pointing out, as TFA does, that the key governmental player in this particular tax avoidance scheme, Ireland, has been pressured into ending it, so Google will no longer be able to do this after next year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but the reason for parking it in the Bermudas is to avoid distributing it back to the parent company, while also keeping it in a jurisdiction that isn't going to try to tax it there.
Also, you should read the rest of that article.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but the reason for parking it in the Bermudas is to avoid distributing it back to the parent company, while also keeping it in a jurisdiction that isn't going to try to tax it there.
Yep, seems like a smart way to lower your tax burden if you're a foreign company (which this is).
That seems overly elaborate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then maybe we shouldn't bother defending Google or Amazon IP, nor their properties overseas, nor defend them in our courts, or even in our country. Since they evade so much, they can self fund their own legal system, their own currency, and their own military.
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe we shouldn't bother defending Google or Amazon IP, nor their properties overseas, nor defend them in our courts, or even in our country. Since they evade so much, they can self fund their own legal system, their own currency, and their own military.
When companies try to self-fund their own legal system, it's called arbitration and Slashdot readers complain.
When the military does anything that might possibly help a company, Slashdot readers complain.
Taxes on companies don't support the "currency". That's funded by bank fees. So it's irrelevant to the discussion.
The original question remains:
Why not just give up of trying to spend money other people earned? Why be so desperate, with the clawing and grasping and angry snarling? Save yourself the angu
Re: (Score:2)
I also have my own arbitration system, called "I win" which I am willing to let them use for a fee if they don't want to use the real one after they pay their back taxes and penalties.
They will just decline to do business with you and ignore you because you are a child.
Re: (Score:2)
What if it would be much cheaper for Google/Facebook/etc to have private fire team, private security and do road repairs themselves than paying taxes?
They could also pay for the judges and military, at which point they have become unelected governments.
The Double-Irish Dutch Sandwich Manoeuver (Score:1)
How nice that big companies can effectively cheat on taxes using dodgy accounting, and pass some of the loot along to C-levels and shareholders, while screwing everyone, the environment and the very economy we rely on to stay alive. Thanks Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not even close to comparable, for an individual this is closer to family trust arrangements.
Me? No I don't make any money, my family trust charges for my time and pays me a modest salary of 20% of the charge rate, the remaining 80% is paid to my wife and three children, after the trusts expenses of paying for the mortgage, utilities, etc. All perfectly legal and above board.
Yeah, they worked out how to shut that down pretty fast once it was used for a lot less than billions a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, sure, and do you think that was how the tax code always was or .... ?
It's a moral failing by Google and a Neglect of Duty by government to let it continue. The present day legality of it is completely beside the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The tax code has always considered "in kind" donations as taxable income.
Always is a long time, and I would suggest in this case it's definitely bullshit. But the kind of Family Trust shenanigans that I was thinking of were exploited here for a long time, and there's still some exceptions built into the US law to make things convenient for the wealthy; like live-in nannys don't have to pay tax on their "free" room since they need access to the kids.
And again - this is NOT about Google's domestic income - this is foreign income, earned overseas..
Not sure how I care about the difference between where Google is dodging tax, is morality exclusively applicable in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
If they are cheating, they'll be prosecuted and fined. They're doing what they can to lower their tax bills; I assume you take every deduction you're legally allowed to take? Why shouldn't someone else get the same grace you expect?
If they're cheating they likely will not be prosecuted or fined. The overwhelming amount of violations of laws (tax, traffic, securities, etc.) are never prosecuted, let alone punished. Punishment requires the will and means to indict, prosecute, convict, and execute judgment. A lack in any of part of the chain precludes punishment. The big companies recognize the weakness of the punishment chain, especially in the global context where no single legal authority exists and where individual national inter
Cogs in your political memeplexes (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignore chatter. Here is the end game: if they paid more taxes, this would not reduce borrowing one iota, as this would give politicians a few more billion to spend.
There is no "fair share" since that presumes some fixed level of spending. But spending is tied to what they can get away with to buy votes. It will always increase even as times get better and better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am mildly annoyed at you. It is only 7 days into the new year and yet you have already hit what I consider a +6 comment. Usually, I only see 2 or 3 of these in a single year so either this year is looking to be a bumper crop of deeply insightful comments or I am doomed to suffer a drought for the rest of this year.
Well done. :)
I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the rabid Google defenders of 20 ys ago ? (Score:1)
Are there still /. users today who remember the time when Google was created, with their famous "Don't be evil" catch phrase ? Remember when Google was seen by the entire /. community as basically the second coming of Christ, and anyone who dared even hint at anything remotely negative about this company was instantly dowmodded into this abyss ?
Remember those who predicted that this new, innovative, enthousiastic and idealistic enterprise would soon be corrupted by the gangrene of corporate filth, and how t
Progressive about your life (Score:5, Insightful)
Proving that they're progressive about your life and your money and the choices you should be allowed/denied. When it comes to what's good for Google, all that progressive dogma falls away and they might as well be a bank or a drug company or an oil driller. All that progressive dogma is just a show to trick the rubes. Hope none of you were gullible enough to take it seriously.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike most military engagements, you at least know who the bastard is and what the bastard's done before you rip him a new one in cold blood, so I'd say that's still pretty far to the progressive end of the spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
You're misunderstanding something (Score:2)
The American media is like this too. Folks talk about the "Liberal Media Bias" because the media pushes climate change, abortion right
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Grrr. (Score:2)
The problem is trying to tax corporations (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporate profit is taxed. The remaining profit is then distributed to shareholders as distributions. If you increase corporate taxes, the shareholders get less money as distributions. If you decrease corporate taxes, the shareholders get more money as distributions. So a tax on corporate profit is the same a tax on shareholder
We're all guilty of this, every single one of us. (Score:1)
Tell me, do you willingly pay more in taxes then you need to? Do you use every deduction you can to AVOID taxes. Use every write off? Give extra money at the end of the year to maximize the amount of money you keep?
Now tell me, you own Google stock and hear they are not using their own financial/tax/lawyers people to maximize profits. There would be a stock holder uprising. Why are we giving away money freely when we could do more to save it. And don't forget, most of us own this stock through a 401K
Governments don't have to allow this (Score:2)
Disallow such actions, and tax them on their true holdings and earnings. If they resist, dissolve the corporation and jail the execs for 500 years each.
Awesome! (Score:2)
Let he who doesn't try to reduce his tax bill cast the first stone.
Good (Score:2)
limousine liberals (Score:2)
In the 80s we called 'em "limousine liberals".
Oh, you thought the high taxes, "fair share", "progressive" stuff applied to us, Google? Ah, no, lol, that's just for you.
Now shut up and pay us to install a surveillance device in your house. (Oh, and go shout at Ajit Pai some more, your two minutes hate isn't over yet.)
Wow (Score:2)
Or is it a shocker because all y'all commoners were bullshitted into thinking how everybody is or is supposed to be an angel/fairy when it comes to morality, and then every now and again you hear news such as this (don't worry, next month you'll read about amazon or whatever other company, football player, or politician) ?
You go and be moral, pay up. They'll take that money, and run to Bermuda with it. And be sure to teach your offspr
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You can call it fraud. Some fraud slips through loopholes, that doesn't change the nature of it. Playing countries off eachother to undermine their tax laws is simply a recently-accepted fraud, in some circles. It's still intending to defraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. I am not familiar with this new tax game involving Bermuda, but the game companies were playing with Netherlands and Ireland a few years was undoubtedly tax evasion, but the IRS conveniently ignored it. Some European countries did something about it and were able to get a judgement against this practice, but the U.S. Government remains silent.
They don't need to, really (Score:2)
Two changes to the American tax code would stop most of this behavior.
1. Do not allow monies paid to wholly owned subsidiaries based in other countries to be claimed as expenses (e.g. Nike paying licensing fees to a subsidiary to use the Nike 'swoosh'). This is by far the most egregiously unfair provision of the US tax code.
2. Put a sharp time limit on allowable deferments for capital held overseas, possibly with a small rate that runs constantly or maybe a staged series of payments until they have paid th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Interesting
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it will. And Bermuda will all of a sudden have a lot of headquarters comprised of a secretary and a telephone.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yay, corporate fraud is Presidential behavior! NOBEL! NOBEL! Google 2020, cheat those taxes and make Mexico pay for it!
Well, given the standard Obama set, Trump had nowhere to go but up.
Trump at least has started North Korea talking seriously with its neighbors. Given the standards of Obama's Nobel-for-nothing, that should pretty much ensure Trump wins the Nobel Peace Prize for just about the next century or so.
As for who gets to pay for the wall? Well, that hasn't been settled yet.
But speaking of Google (and Apple, for that matter...), did you notice that the FCC has shut down with the 1/4 of the government that isn't fun
Re: (Score:2)
(a) 23 billion is actually quite big
(b) 23 billion x 50 companies* ~= 1 trillion ... does this get your attention?
* Most other companies wouldn't be 23 billion. ... thousands do.
Then again, 50 companies don't use tax havens
Not American - Don't know the Kate Steinle story (Score:1)
So I thought I'd look it up.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
I could have predicted it would be a lot more complicated than your post made it out to be. Step #1 in the misinformation playbook - strip all context from the discussion, and paint things in broad, simplistic - and inaccurate - terms.
If a citizen did this they'd get manslaughter (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If a wall won't do anything to discourage crossing, then why do you have a fucking LOCK on your front door?
It may only keep out the honest thieves, but that is still quite a few of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the cheating is that great and everyone is doing it to some degree, it makes far more sense to lower the tax rate and collect a smaller percentage of everything being dodged than it does to keep on the current course. If you’ve got exact numbers this just becomes a simple math problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn’t it more or less the case already [wikipedia.org]?
Re: good thing they created all those new jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Tax dodging. Define it as incorporating (directly or indirectly via a parent/holding/etc. corporation) in a nation in which the CxOs, board members, etc. and their immediate families do not physically reside for at least 51% of the year or in which they do not claim citizenship, or in a nation whose individual (citizen) and incorporated investors do not control a plurality of voting shares of the company.
Thus, to incorporate in a country you must have all the higher ups and their families LIVING in that country as CITIZENS for most of the year, and all voting stock must be held within that country. No shell games either. Google gets the most restrictive set of rules and highest tax rates that would apply to Google OR Alphabet OR any of its "holding companies" OR anything like Google China.
You know, the same kind of shit a regular person working/living across state/national borders has to deal with.
Re: good thing they created all those new jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
Tax dodging. Define it as incorporating (directly or indirectly via a parent/holding/etc. corporation) in a nation in which the CxOs, board members, etc. and their immediate families do not physically reside for at least 51% of the year or in which they do not claim citizenship
No matter how smart you are in thinking you can close up the loopholes there are armies of accountants and lawyers who are WAAAY smarter and can figure out a way around it.
Meet Joe Islander. He has lived on the island his entire life where he is an aspiring surfer. He is our new CEO and his salary is a company-paid-for beachside house and fishing boat. Please address all high level corporate decision making to our former CEO and new executive ultra president Mr Big back in New York.
Etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm with gp. I don't believe in giving-up just because it's difficult to close the loopholes. The government can hire the very same "armies of accountants and lawyers" to close the loopholes. Or at least reduce them. Significantly.
Example:
We deride government attempts to force companies to break encryption, citing open source alternatives. Yet the government still passes SOMETHING. They'll take whatever they can. (c.f. recently passed privacy invading laws in Australia)
Another measure: governments ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how smart you are in thinking you can close up the loopholes there are armies of accountants and lawyers who are WAAAY smarter and can figure out a way around it.
Sick of this quote. It is easy to close the loopholes. It is just not a good move politically as you would be painted as introducing something "unfair" (or some other smear campaign).
First easy solution: You pay the greater of X% on profit with existing rules OR Y% on gross revenue.
This puts a hard floor on how much they can avoid. Companies only are in control of shifting costs creatively. The sale must always happen, so the revenue will always happen. You only need to make it 2% or something to be effecti
Re: good thing they created all those new jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter how smart you are in thinking you can close up the loopholes there are armies of accountants and lawyers who are WAAAY smarter and can figure out a way around it.
Sick of this quote. It is easy to close the loopholes. It is just not a good move politically as you would be painted as introducing something "unfair" (or some other smear campaign).
Remember Dodd-Frank? It was one of those attempts to close a bunch of loopholes in the banking industry, and to an extent it worked and made the financial sector less risky.
It also made the big banks bigger and the small banks smaller.
The problem is to close loopholes you need lots of rules, and if you have lots of rules then businesses need lots of people to ensure they're following those rules, and the bigger the business the more people you can afford.
One of the reasons that Google and Apple are so dominant is there are a lot of rules meant to prevent companies exploiting loopholes, and it's the biggest companies who are best able to invest in circumventing those rules.
Try to close more loopholes and you might end up giving Apple and Google even bigger shares of the economy.
First easy solution: You pay the greater of X% on profit with existing rules OR Y% on gross revenue.
Gross revenue of what? A company from the Netherlands makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500.
Which countries deserve to collect which taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
A company from the Netherlands makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500.
Which countries deserve to collect which taxes?
I think the point is that if you have company A in the the Netherlands which makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500, and company B in the Netherlands which makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500, then they should both pay the same amount of tax overall (other things being equal).
There is no good logical or economic reason for company A to pay (proportionately) less tax just because they're much bigger and richer and can hire more tax lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
A company from the Netherlands makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500.
Which countries deserve to collect which taxes?
I think the point is that if you have company A in the the Netherlands which makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500, and company B in the Netherlands which makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500, then they should both pay the same amount of tax overall (other things being equal).
There is no good logical or economic reason for company A to pay (proportionately) less tax just because they're much bigger and richer and can hire more tax lawyers.
Except how much of company A is really in the Netherlands and how much is in the US or China? And is that bit of the company there because of tax policy or valid business reasons? You can point to obvious tax avoidance, but it's hard to encode tax avoidance in a bill.
Plus, suppose the Netherlands wants to encourage some behaviour like recycling or parental leave and does it with tax breaks. Company A might be bigger and better able to do those things. At what point is it legit and what point avoidance?
Re: (Score:2)
For the taxing gross revenue, a sale of $500 in US would result in paying tax on that $500 in the US. That would close the US loophole. It opens questions about the multi-lateral agreements between many countries about avoiding double taxation, but like all agreements that could also be walked away from. Short answer is that it is a solvable problem for someone with adequate political spine.
Re: (Score:3)
For the taxing gross revenue, a sale of $500 in US would result in paying tax on that $500 in the US. That would close the US loophole. It opens questions about the multi-lateral agreements between many countries about avoiding double taxation, but like all agreements that could also be walked away from. Short answer is that it is a solvable problem for someone with adequate political spine.
So if the phone is bought from a foreign subsidiary for $400 then do you charge tax on the $500 or the $100? If you charge the full $500 then consumers will be unhappy as their prices skyrocket. I don't actually know the situation right now since that's retail. But what about this scenario?
The company is owned in the Netherlands, made in China, sold in the UK, but are the R&D was done in the US.
How do you get an appropriate cut of the sale into the US?
Re: (Score:2)
This is tiresome. As I said it is easy to solve, just unpopular. And harder to solve with slightly less unfair systems.
For this example, it doesn't matter what it cost, where it was made. If it sold in US for $500 tax the $500. Yes prices will rise. However that is just an acknowledgement that currently the business is not paying its tax. Now it has to, so it has to either be less profitable or pass it on.
The key point was you pay under the normal systems if you are not tax dodging. You pay under this "unfa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not fraud/evasion/avoidance when it's legal.
Here in the UK, 'avoidance' is legal (minimising your tax bill) and 'evasion' is illegal (not paying tax you should).
The criticism of companies like Google or Apple is that their actions are immoral, rather than illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lookit; if it takes a cadre of high priced lawyers, accountants, PR spokesmen, lobbyists and bought and paid for politications to justify it, along with needing a flowchart to explain it -- it's more than certainly vile and immoral behavior.
This.. "well it's not technically against the letter of the law.. so it's okay.." mentality is just enabling shit behavior from corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whose signature is on the financial transactions? That person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
International tax haven tax avoidance schemes are not what "globalism" refers to.
Yes, it is, your cherry picking notwithstanding. "Oh you silly trumplets, globalism is all these good things over here, none of that bad things over there..."
Stop Google now, before it's too late (Score:4, Interesting)
It's time for President Trump to get out his trust-busting stick. Break up Alphabet!
Android - separate company
Chrome - separate company
YouTube - separate company
Gmail - separate company
Search - separate company
Advertising - separate company
Maps - separate company
Arrest Sundar Pichai. Shut down the dangerous mad science projects. Arrest the nazi mad scientists. Shut down the wannabe-Skynet AI. Arrest those mad scientists too.
Break up Alphabet now! Stop Google before it's too late!
Re: (Score:2)