Google is not responsible for the corrupt and decadent governments in countries they don't operate out of; they're hardly responsible for it where they do operate. When China manipulates the markets so much that they collapse, and when Sweden spends its way into poverty, it will not be Google's fault, nor their responsibility to pay for it.
Decadent? I take issue. Google, like virtually every large corporation in the world, spends a significant amount of time and resources finding the optimal way to pay the least amount of taxes, through loopholes, borderline or actually illegal schemes, lobbying etc. We're supposed to blame the countries for being defrauded in this way, not the multinationals doing the defrauding? Come off it.
You want to do business in a country, you abide by the laws of that country. Governments serve their citizens and their interests. Whatever is convenient for corporations has (or should have) _zero_ bearing on any decisions. In true liberal style: if they don't like the rules they're welcome to go elsewhere.
I view tax codes like buggy software, lawful tax minimisation like zero day exploits — only difference is that the law is not above itself, so if the tax loophole is legal, then it's legal.
That said, just because something is legal doesn't make it moral, but even though I think we agree on that, I'd have to argue loopholes are totally in the domain of legislators to fix — if I understand correctly, UK law requires tax payers to report any minimisation schemes they are party to. Does that have teeth? I don't know, but it's a thought.
That's not a wholly correct interpretation. Law codes aren't rigorous; there's room for "interpreting" the law, and what really matters in the end is intent ("spirit of the law" > "letter of the law"). At any rate, the news is about "patching" the exploits.
I view corporations as non-human intelligences, so while it's totally unethical for a human to manipulate the law to their own ends, it's also something I expect corporations to perceive as acceptable, in as much as that makes sense (they will not shun each other for it) and in much the way we humans generally agree it's wrong to kill but we don't shun people for amputations or appendectomies.
This is why I prefer democratic corporations, rare as they are, to pure capitalist ones — at least the metaphorical appendix has a vote.
> Are you saying that Apple or Google don't operate in Spain or France?
While technically they do have offices in Spain and France, they are mainly service offices. The critical operations of Google are carried out in the United States, and to a (far) lesser extent, Canada, Japan, and various other places.
> What the heck has to do your claim of Spain or France being corrupt with Apple or Google declaring losses with record revenues?
It's called expenditure, the vast majority of the wealth Apple and Google generate involves spending a lot of the wealth they made in the past. This is explicitly protected by the tax codes of basically any nation worth doing business in.
Spain, for example, has a rather meh economy, meanwhile the state is funneling public funds into things like a concentrated solar plant which will probably never generate more revenue than expenditure. If not corrupt, then that is at least decadent.
> Spain, for example, has a rather meh economy, meanwhile the state is funneling public funds into things like a concentrated solar plant which will probably never generate more revenue than expenditure. If not corrupt, then that is at least decadent.
I recommend you sit down, evaluate what you are saying, and try to figure out what on earth that has to do with corporate taxing.
You don't agree with a project that a government is developing, so it's not legitimate for them to tax corporations. That's the only connection I can see.
> meanwhile the state is funneling public funds into things like a concentrated solar plant which will probably never generate more revenue than expenditure.
Erm the state isn't a for-profit entity, in fact if it were to generate a profit for some reason and didn't use that money to improve infrastructure and the living conditions of the people it represents then it would've stopped serving its purpose.
It doesn't matter that their investment doesn't generate revenue, it will improve the lives of the people it represents.
