Google boss "very proud of our tax avoidance scheme"
234 replies, posted
Another idea to poke around with would be to reduce the politicians' pay. Most of what they do is argue with each other, so is it really wise to pay them as much as we do?
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38824657]Then what the hell do you base society off of? Governments, societies, countries, nations? Oh hey, I have an idea! Everybody pays the government a portion of their income, and the government gives them "services" in return (protection, education, etc.). There are no for-profit companies allowed, either. Instead, the government pays people to do things "for the public good"! Now there's no companies to abuse the public for profit, and everybody ends up with a great life!
We tried that in the dark ages with [b]feudalism[/b]. (Spoiler: It didn't really work out)
You know what got the middle class started? The middle class that ultimately caused the end the shitstain on human history that is the dark ages? Merchants, bitches!
(Also the Middle East got its shit together before Europe did and kicked their asses, which was a nice motivation for them)[/QUOTE]
I was going to respond to King Tiger's question, but I'll cover it in more detail with this so whatever.
And actually, what you described was state socialism. Feudalism is an entirely different economic system that relied on small caste-based communities in some sort of loose federalism to migrate materials upwards and providing little services to those below. Feudalism has more to do with who owns what land than it has to do with governments and services exchanged.
Socialism, on the other hand- at least state socialism- has always been defined pretty much as you defined feudalism: the state provides all public utilities and commodities in exchange for the labor, capital, or wealth of the civil society.
And I'd strongly argue that the middle class was not merchants, but artisans, who were not serfs as they owned their own means of production, and not merchants, as they sold their own means of production. Artisans fell well within the middle between the rich and the poor, and it's artisans- not merchants- who would define the first cleavage in the lower classes and become wealthy enough to be socially mobile on their own accord.
But regardless, business has never been the base of society- states have. Business has always been at the mercy of states except in issues of degenerative states that would always lead to collapse whenever the economy would falter. Markets don't make good states, and states don't make good markets.
I'm trying not to get into my own ideology in this thread, but I have kind of lead into it a few times- the statement you've quoted being one of those. Essentially, why would we base our society around and give power to a unit that exists for the sole purpose of moral-less accumulation of wealth for the few? This sounds more closely to the goal of feudalism (and slightly of fascism). We invest so many powers of the state into the hands of these economic powers, which are capable of swaying the state and challenging its control if they so wish. However, this is not how I would like my society to be structured- that is, I don't want unresponsive, immoral, unchecked entities who wish to accumulate the product of my labor controlling my life. This is not a good thing to have a society built around, and not a good thing to have as a structural power that matches or takes on the role of a state.
[QUOTE=garry;38817624]I don't get why this makes people angry. Why would you pay more tax than you need to? If the govt don't like it then they should change the tax law so they have no other choice.
No-one is voluntarily going to pay more tax than they have to. It's an accountant's main job to minimize the amount of tax that you pay.
If your morals should dictate the amount of tax you pay then why not get rid of the whole tax law all together and let people pay what they morally think they should?[/QUOTE]
I think it's not what he's doing that is making people mad, it's his being a smug dickhead about the whole affair.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38824592]That's just your opinion. Morals are relative, as a moral nihilist would say.
Besides that, moral nihilism speaks only about "absolute" morals, meaning that there's nothing in the universe that determines whether or not something is "good" to do (a go, karma system, or whatever). A moral nihilist can still say "there aren't any absolute morals, but I'm still going to be a 'good' person". Just as an atheist can say "there's no ultimate reward for being a good person, but I'll do it anyway".
Also, I'm not a moral nihilist so I can't really speak much for them anyway.[/QUOTE]
no, there pretty much are universally accepted morals. not an opinion, just fact. a universally accepted moral is in effect an absolute moral, it is a moral that is in all human beings regardless of race / religion / political backing
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38823563']To elaborate more on this:
When Garry made Gmod, he had initial capital. He had the Source engine and the code for it. This was his initial capital. This was not of his own invention, and is the equivalent of being an open market, as this is just sitting there waiting to be exploited. He took the initiative to educate himself in how to work the code and the initiative to make Gmod. He did the work to make Gmod and then to get it where it needed to be to make a profit off it. We can safely attribute this to him, but this is not a viable example of the position of the majority.
Imagine instead that Source was not something open to the public. We could all play a Source game, but no one had access to any tools that could be used to modify it or its base code. It was instead held by Valve employees only. How is Garry supposed to gain access to the capital of Source? how can he reasonably make Gmod, or even begin to put the effort in, if he has no access to Source? Well, he could build his own engine, right? But this is only viable if he has the resources to expend on this. But because Garry uses all of his labor, time, and capital on providing for his family, paying his rent, and still can't afford all of what he needs, how is he reasonably expected to break into the market? The exception is if he creates something unique to the market, but this is a chance that few of us will ever have. And whenever a chance to work with Source- or any engine- opens up, Garry is denied the opportunity because the conditions of the time allow more favorably skilled persons also seeking to work with Source to gain these positions first. Garry, and 4 million others of his class and skill, is also competing with 1 million others who have previously worked with code and engines professionally. when there are only 50 opening every year, then what chance does he have? Without Source, Garry can not develop Gmod. This is not a matter of the work he puts in, this is the simple availability of Source being denied to the lower classes because of the actions or wishes of the upper classes.
Hence, Valve denies capital to Garry. Garry has no opportunity to ever develop Gmod.[/QUOTE]
You make a good point there, I think.
I don't fully recall in which case it was the same thing, but I believe it was the Roman Empire which fell because the rich were holding onto absolutely everything... and you know, when there's only rich people, no one's rich. Empire collapsed.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38823563']Imagine instead that Source was not something open to the public. We could all play a Source game, but no one had access to any tools that could be used to modify it or its base code. It was instead held by Valve employees only. How is Garry supposed to gain access to the capital of Source? how can he reasonably make Gmod, or even begin to put the effort in, if he has no access to Source? Well, he could build his own engine, right? But this is only viable if he has the resources to expend on this. But because Garry uses all of his labor, time, and capital on providing for his family, paying his rent, and still can't afford all of what he needs, how is he reasonably expected to break into the market? The exception is if he creates something unique to the market, but this is a chance that few of us will ever have. And whenever a chance to work with Source- or any engine- opens up, Garry is denied the opportunity because the conditions of the time allow more favorably skilled persons also seeking to work with Source to gain these positions first. Garry, and 4 million others of his class and skill, is also competing with 1 million others who have previously worked with code and engines professionally. when there are only 50 opening every year, then what chance does he have? Without Source, Garry can not develop Gmod. This is not a matter of the work he puts in, this is the simple availability of Source being denied to the lower classes because of the actions or wishes of the upper classes.[/QUOTE]
Valve is also denying themselves capital, in this imaginary scenario. I'm sure that they take a cut from the sales of Gmod, both because it's on Steam and because it's a Source game. Not to mention the sales of the various other Source games because of the content you can gain in Gmod. Giving people access to Source has contributed a huge amount to Valve's success.
Companies enjoy more success when they also share that success with others. Becoming a public company, releasing a tool for the public, or allowing users and developers to access a platform... All of these can cause an already successful company to become even more so. A company that wants to become a major force will always do something like that.
Also, the lack of capital is why banks and loans exist. If you're sure you have a good idea, get yourself a business loan and get to it. (Yes, not everyone can do this, I know. But the option is there for a lot of people, and they don't take advantage of it)
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38819775]tbh i once saw [B]a black person on welfare smiling and enjoying life[/B] we should just abolish welfare[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;eu6ioKjZsGU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu6ioKjZsGU[/video]
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;38825018]Valve is also denying themselves capital, in this imaginary scenario. I'm sure that they take a cut from the sales of Gmod, both because it's on Steam and because it's a Source game. Not to mention the sales of the various other Source games because of the content you can gain in Gmod. Giving people access to Source has contributed a huge amount to Valve's success.
Companies enjoy more success when they also share that success with others. Becoming a public company, releasing a tool for the public, or allowing users and developers to access a platform... All of these can cause an already successful company to become even more so. A company that wants to become a major force will always do something like that.
Also, the lack of capital is why banks and loans exist. If you're sure you have a good idea, get yourself a business loan and get to it. (Yes, not everyone can do this, I know. But the option is there for a lot of people, and they don't take advantage of it)[/QUOTE]
And if you don't think you have a good idea? If you don't have the time? This is the reality for most people.
And you are right, which again comes down to what I've been saying: they have an interest in distributing capital down, and they're denying themselves a market if they don't. But in reality, there is no distribution down. Investment rates are at an all time low, wages are at a low, taxes are at a low... so at which point does Source become accessible to anyone else when Valve is working to keep it from being accessible for their own benefit?
So why not close the loop holes instead of bitching at the companies? They're exploiting the laws handed to them. They're doing nothing illegal. If you want more money from them close the loopholes they're exploiting to get out of their taxes. Derp.
[QUOTE=Swilly;38817926]Whatever happened to civic duty?
Because I don't see that saved money going to their workers.[/QUOTE]
Civic duty does not exist.
[editline]14th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38824826]no, there pretty much are universally accepted morals. not an opinion, just fact. a universally accepted moral is in effect an absolute moral, it is a moral that is in all human beings regardless of race / religion / political backing[/QUOTE]
Yet there sort of isn't an absolute moral. Even one universally accepted, such as "Don't shoot people in the dick", is not absolute. Someone somewhere thinks doing that [i]is[/i] moral.
No two moral compasses point the same way. You can't just say "Well the majority believe x so x is absolute".
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38824826]no, there pretty much are universally accepted morals. not an opinion, just fact. a universally accepted moral is in effect an absolute moral, it is a moral that is in all human beings regardless of race / religion / political backing[/QUOTE]
This is wrong
This is so fucking wrong that I have to remember there's actually people who think morals are absolute and universal with literally no evidence or proof of that
if you disagree just have a gander through history and see all the different moral view points that took it upon themselves to slaughter others over their moral fortitude, we're not much better today
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;38817594]Google doesn't really have any customer support tbh[/QUOTE]
Incidentally, Google is Google's customer support.
Actually, I barely even use [I]any[/I] company's customer support anymore- all the answers exist on Google.
[QUOTE=ARustySpoon;38817472]I await the Google fanboys.[/QUOTE]
I like google products and think this is stupid thanks
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38824826]no, there pretty much are universally accepted morals. not an opinion, just fact. a universally accepted moral is in effect an absolute moral, it is a moral that is in all human beings regardless of race / religion / political backing[/QUOTE]
It's not a 'fact' though..
Trillions of lifeforms and non-organic structures throughout the universe aren't subject to our 'absolute morals'.
Asteroids don't avoid hitting planets because destroying organic life 'isn't acceptable morally'.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38824826]no, there pretty much are universally accepted morals. not an opinion, just fact. a universally accepted moral is in effect an absolute moral, it is a moral that is in all human beings regardless of race / religion / political backing[/QUOTE]
You make a really good point.
So uh, [I]name one[/I].
[QUOTE=TestECull;38828639]So why not close the loop holes instead of bitching at the companies? They're exploiting the laws handed to them. They're doing nothing illegal. If you want more money from them close the loopholes they're exploiting to get out of their taxes. Derp.
[/QUOTE]
Because the companies are the ones facilitating the methods by which the loopholes exist.
I went into greater detail on that already. To restate my analogy:
[quote]The rich create the environment in which the rich benefit so they do not need to pay the taxes. Therefore, this is not a "blame the game not the players", because the "game" is made by a minority of the players- the ones that benefit. It is essentially allegorical to a situation in which a robber makes the laws that allow him to steal your shit, and then say "Hey, I shouldn't be expected to [I]not[/I] rob you. This isn't about me taking from you, or the relationship between you and me, this is about the laws that allow me to do it". Do not make the mistake that the political and economic environment is not the result of one class of people working to advantage themselves against the interest of the other classes.[/quote]
The robber is still a robber, regardless as to whether the robbing is state-sanctioned.
[QUOTE=TestECull;38828639]
Civic duty does not exist.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit, yes it does. Responses to things like the Great Depression and World War II were major collectivism moments, aka civic duty.
I think we're done putting out anything of note here.
Honestly I don't mind Google not paying what they should be paying. It's legal and they're creating more than enough jobs/careers for people who will pay their taxes to justify it.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38824670']
But as I've said- a collective or group is no less responsible than an individual. They must abide by the same moral standards as any individual. If groups, collectives, or entities made of persons are simply exempt from the moral conditions of the time, then we might as well get rid of partisan politics all together and agree that [I]those[/I] entities have no reason or obligation to be morally ethical. By all means you are right in that corporations do not have a literal, physical obligation. But do we want to live in a society in which any collective or group is allowed to simply do as they wish with the lives of so many, simply because it is its purpose? That an institution afflicted with a public purpose can simply act in a way that is immature or dangerous for its own benefit? At what point are we going to say that just because you can means we ought to let you? Corporations- at least the larger scale ones- control more lives than their own and affect far beyond their borders. It then becomes a public necessity for regulation and limitation to be imposed on these entities if they do not do so themselves. but because business has a political party of its own and greatly affects the other, these sorts of political changes are difficult and challenged in the legislature. We must hold corporations that control lives, economies, and the rest at the same standard we would hold a state. Why do we cry out against Korea denying food to its masses, but cheer when a corporation is capable of hoarding wealth and denying it to the masses?[/QUOTE]
You are again assuming that the wealth that these companies are giving to the government goes to the people. It does not.
If you're taking advantage of tax cuts and loopholes the government gives out to companies, even to the point where you're damaging the economy: It's the government's fault for mismanaging the tax laws. It's perfectly acceptable to use these to your advantage.
If you're on welfare or any form of government assistance: You're DAMAGING the economy with your greed, quit being a freeloader and get a job/haircut, you hippy/lesbian degenerate.
[QUOTE=garry;38817624]I don't get why this makes people angry. Why would you pay more tax than you need to? If the govt don't like it then they should change the tax law so they have no other choice.
No-one is voluntarily going to pay more tax than they have to. It's an accountant's main job to minimize the amount of tax that you pay.
If your morals should dictate the amount of tax you pay then why not get rid of the whole tax law all together and let people pay what they morally think they should?[/QUOTE]
Did everybody just change their opinion and agree to this just because it's garry? If it was anyone else facepunch would be ripping that poor fellow a new asshole.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38819775]tbh i once saw a black person on welfare smiling and enjoying life we should just abolish welfare[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw[/media]
The problem isn't the tax evasion, its the part that he is being so smug about it.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;38824883]You make a good point there, I think.
I don't fully recall in which case it was the same thing, but I believe it was the Roman Empire which fell because the rich were holding onto absolutely everything... and you know, when there's only rich people, no one's rich. Empire collapsed.[/QUOTE]
It fell apart because of the Arabs, Mongols and Goths invading everything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.