December 13, 2012

“Morally bankrupt tax policies … ” [Darleen Click]

Would those referenced policies be the ones enacted by Big Government, not to collect just enough money in an equitable way to fund legitimate government functions, but to reward or punish people based on their political usefulness?

Absolutely not! By golly, only the taxpayer can have a “morally-bankrupt tax policy” by which said taxpayer pays as little tax as possible legally

Mr Schmidt’s comments risk inflaming the row over the amount of tax multinationals pay, after it emerged that Google funnelled $9.8bn (£6.07bn) of revenues from international subsidiaries into Bermuda last year in order to halve its tax bill.

However, Mr Schmidt defended the company’s legitimate tax arrangements. “We pay lots of taxes; we pay them in the legally prescribed ways,” he told Bloomberg. “I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate.”

“It’s called capitalism,” he said. “We are proudly capitalistic. I’m not confused about this.”

In Britain Vince Cable was unimpressed by Mr Schmidt’s views. The Business Secretary told The Daily Telegraph: “It may well be [capitalism] but it’s certainly not the job of governments to accommodate it.”

So the government is angry at someone acting legally because it falls short of the government’s expectation of a windfall?

Britain’s Cable isn’t the only one exhibiting public covetousness.

A Californian pressure group called Consumer Watchdog wrote to the Senate’s Finance Committee demanding a hearing on Google’s “global tax avoidance strategies”.

Consumer Watchdog’s director John Simpson called for the Committee to schedule a time for Mr Schmidt and Google’s chief executive could “testify under oath and explain their company’s apparent abuse of the tax code to the detriment of all who play fairly.”

Mr Simpson urged the Senate to work with “other countries’ tax authorities” to “put an end to egregious loopholes that allow cynical exploitation by this generation’s Robber Barons.”

“Governments in Europe, many of which have ben (sic) targets of Google’s morally bankrupt tax policies, are actively seeking redress,” he wrote. “But this is not a problem that only impacts other countries’ revenues. Google’s tactics strike at the US Treasury as well, forcing the rest of us to make up for the Internet giant’s unwillingness to pay its fair share.”

I would like to ask Cable and Simpson, or any other statist hack who believes all monies are collectively-owned by The People, if they use coupons or shop sales or even patronize certain stores to get the best price possible.

Aren’t they then just as morally bankrupt with their own legal behavior at high-price avoidance? Aren’t they cheating some businesses of a “fair share” of commerce?

We must have an Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Policy right away!

h/t Legal Insurrection

Posted by Darleen @ 7:49am

Tags: , ,

Comments (7)

  1. Reap … sow … something something.

  2. I’ve taken to challenging people who mention “fairness” to quantify exactly what that would mean. What is a “fair” income tax rate, and what criteria are used to evaluate fairness?

    Lots of Ralph Kramden “Hummana-hummana-hummana” dancing around usually follows.

  3. Fairness, of course, is an ad hoc criterion that can never be turned into an objective value. Which is why populist tyrants love it — especially those who get elected by being a blank slate onto which the voters project whatever they hope that candidate will be, and who then spend their entire tenure in office dodging responsibility by blaming everything they fuck up on the people who tried to stop him from fucking it up.

  4. Consumer Watchdog reeks of Soros

    for all its nasty obamawhore tendencies google makes our lives better

    whereas our inept fascist government just rapes us viciously

    and that kooky british loser should be way more concerned about the royalty devil baby what can kill with his mind

  5. The only objectionable – but certainly not illegal – thing about Google is that they no doubt use some of that money saved from tax avoidance schemes to fund the very politicians, such as Obama, who push so hard for the tax the rich(good ‘n hard) out of “fairness.”

  6. Google is being shaken down by the Obama’s the same way Microsoft was under the Clinton Admin.

  7. Aren’t they then just as morally bankrupt with their own legal behavior at high-price avoidance? Aren’t they cheating some businesses of a “fair share” of commerce?

    It’s only abuse when someone else does it.