Print 62 comment(s) - last by jharper12.. on Jan 5 at 1:08 PM

David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK, said that companies like Google are immorally minimizing tax bills

Google has managed to skip paying about $1.6 billion USD (£1 billion) in taxes by way of the island Bermuda -- and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom isn't happy.

Google sent £6 billion through Bermuda over the course of last year, which halved its 2011 tax bill. In fact, Google funneled 80 percent of its global revenue through the island and ended up paying about £1 billion less to the government.

Google's Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said this "is called capitalism."

“We pay lots of taxes; we pay them in the legally prescribed ways,” said Schmidt. “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.”

David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK, said that companies like Google are immorally minimizing tax bills and need to be stopped. He even wrote a letter to fellow leaders of the G8 requesting a global crackdown on tax avoidance for large companies such as Google and Starbucks.

“I do believe we all have a common interest in being able to tell our taxpayers who work hard and pay their fair share of taxes that we will make sure others do the same,” wrote Cameron in an open letter to the G8.

Google's UK Head Matt Brittin said politicians are the ones who set tax rates, and that Google is playing by their rules.

Google funneled £2.6 billion of British revenue through Bermuda, which cut its UK tax bill by £200 million.

In April of last year, it was reported that Apple made $9.5 billion USD in Britain for 2011, but only paid 0.16 percent in taxes. Amazon was also targeted for its headquarters in the tiny European Union nation of Luxembourg and Google's placement in Ireland with subsidiaries in the Caribbean and Luxembourg for more tax dodging gains.

The New York Times then blamed Apple for dodging billions in taxes in a lengthy article last year.

Source: Business Insider

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: two faced
By retrospooty on 1/2/2013 1:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Can you name a company that doesn't do that? We only pick on Apple and Google because they are a couple of today's top earners and this is a tech site...

It's legal. It's legal because long ago companies paid off the right congressman and senators to not do anything about it. If it ever comes up again, companies pay off the new round of hoods we send to Washington. Google and Apple are just doing what they can because that is how business is done in the USA. Take that away and companies like them may just move their whole business offshore..

RE: two faced
By room200 on 1/2/2013 1:30:09 PM , Rating: 3
It's also legal that members of congress and use insider information to use for their personal gain when making investments; being legal doesn't make it right.

RE: two faced
By menting on 1/2/2013 1:48:58 PM , Rating: 3
then make it illegal then.
and I don't think it's legal anymore for members of congress to use insider information to make investments now. If i remember correctly a law was passed just for that not long ago.

RE: two faced
By xti on 1/2/13, Rating: 0
RE: two faced
By rsmech on 1/2/2013 6:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not certain either but the law did pass but only when they changed it from being illegal to just being an ethics violation. The last is just a slap on the wrist.

RE: two faced
By euclidean on 1/2/2013 1:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
Technically, it's no longer legal for them either (Insider Trading that is)...

RE: two faced
By ritualm on 1/2/2013 2:28:18 PM , Rating: 1
Does it even matter?

Corporations have more power than the government. Corporations literally have the government in their pockets. The law above does nothing but appease the ignorant public that something is being done - when the truth is it's business as usual.

RE: two faced
By hubb1e on 1/2/2013 6:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
If corporations had as much power as you claim then ObamaCare would not exist, many of the regulations we have today would not exist, unions would not be able to extort money from worker involuntarily and they would pay no taxes at all, perhaps harvesting us for our oily discharges so they could sell them back to us as makeup.

In truth some BIG businesses have some government power and they use that power to push out competition, but so do the people. You may not like what the people vote for but they do have power in our government and most of us are perfectly happy with the status quo.

RE: two faced
By Strunf on 1/4/2013 6:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
lol you really think ObamaCare is bad for big corporations? what if I told the pharmaceutical industry will still get their money regardless of the ObamaCare or not, heck they will probably get even more after all if you were sick and had no health care insurance you would stay at home and give no money to pharmaceutical companies now well you go and enjoy your benefits and the pharmaceutical companies will get their cut.
Be no fool the pharmaceutical industry hope is that even the homeless get health care.

RE: two faced
By wookie1 on 1/2/2013 7:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure? The government has guns, and the legal authority to use violence against you, and you're more afraid of a corporation?! Limiting the power of government is the only way to prevent the corporatism that is what I think you actually fear.

RE: two faced
By ritualm on 1/2/2013 7:34:04 PM , Rating: 1
Are you sure? The government has guns, and the legal authority to use violence against you, and you're more afraid of a corporation?! Limiting the power of government is the only way to prevent the corporatism that is what I think you actually fear.

Who actually writes the laws in USA? Big hint: it's not the congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill, they just pass/vote down based on party lines and special interests.

Corporations use the government to enforce unjust laws against you, and you're saying I should be more scared of the government sending its Secret Service agents to my house? I don't think you're paying attention.

RE: two faced
By wookie1 on 1/3/2013 12:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you just reinforced my argument. If the government was limited in its power as it is supposed to be, there would be no opportunity for the corporations, as well as special interest organizations to bend the ear of sympathetic lawmakers. As you say, it's the government enforcing these laws.

RE: two faced
By room200 on 1/2/2013 6:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for that information. I try to be "up" on my stuff, but I didn't know that the bill had passed.

RE: two faced
By KCjoker on 1/2/13, Rating: 0
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki