Google, like ALL corporations, are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to pursue profit. If Google responded to increased taxation in the UK by punitively withdrawing highly-profitable services its shareholders, who would stand to lose financially, are legally entitled to seek not just the removal of the chairman and/or board of directors but also their prosecution under United States federal law.

Well in the scheme of things it means nothing, but i changed my default search engine from google.

Leave business to those who know what they talk about? You aren't suggesting you do are you?



What you post in this thread shows the exact opposite. It's full of baseless "facts" such as:



"You might think that's OK, but with companies like Google come lots and lots of jobs, and with those jobs come employees, all of whom pay tax on both their earnings and on what they spend their wages on. Without companies like Google investing in the local economy, those jobs simply wouldn't exist."



"Lots and lots of jobs"? They employ a grand total of 1300 staff in the UK. They are not a major employer by any stretch of the imagination - apart from in yours that is.



If they shut their UK operation down because they had to pay corporation tax the loss of income tax and NI from those employees would be more than made up for by the corporation tax take so that right wing b/s reasoning doesn't apply here does it?



Not that they would shut down the UK operation anyway. The only reason they employ people here is to help them make a profit out of their second largest market.



And dismissing the tax disadvantages suffered by small companies because they have other disadvantages is just completely irrelevant.



So before you start telling people they write a load of crap you ought to think before you type. Otherwise you just look foolish.

Exactly. The idea they would give up their UK revenue if they had to start paying tax on it is as I said ludicrous.



The way Google avoid tax in the UK that they would otherwise be liable for (no their tax liability is not solely in Ireland as someone else suggested) is by doing things like posting a loss due to giving out share awards to employees.



The fact they can register a loss in that way and so avoid a higher tax bill is (part of) the problem. There just seem far too many ways for multi-national businesses to reduce their paper profit to zero or less simply to avoid tax. However if those mechanisms were to be denied them, they would still be here doing what they do and taking home a mere 76% of their profit.

Well, this is the problem. Far too many people are either unaware or don't want to recognise the fact - written in plain English into the legal obligations of US-based corporations - that they MUST pursue profit. We have to view this issue in terms of [ustructures[/u. Structures which shackle corporate bosses (who often have the best of intentions) exclusively to one mode of behavior - the pursuit of maximum profit above all other concerns. These are the very same structures which lead to, say, oil spills or tragedies such as Bhopal.



So you have, the head of global oil company X, who might otherwise be completely opposed to harming the environment, presented with two solutions to, say, a well head problem:



Option 1 (Cheap): Fast and loose and ignores the safety concerns of workers.

Option 2 (Expensive): Thorough and safe.



Irrespective of his concerns (if indeed he has any), he is [ulegally obligated[/u to choose option 1. If he doesn't he knows that the shareholders of the company, who stand to be out of pocket, can seek his removal. And he also knows there are any number of people after his job who will have no issues whatsoever with taking the cheaper route.



It's completely mad to think Google would dump what for it is a very profitable venture simply out of spite. That option is not just inconceivable but [iillegal. [/i



But beyond this, we really must think seriously about how we have allowed ourselves to be controlled by a legally-binding ideology that, taken to its logical conclusion, can only lead to dire consequences. This is why Marxists - quite correctly - argue that if capitalism isn't protected from itself it must ultimately consume itself.

The exec would not be obliged to choose option 1. With the US being such a litigious society he would have to balance the decision to choose the cheap option against the potential costs that would be incurred should an incident occur due to not opting for the safe and thorough option resulting in large damages and fines being awarded against the company. The exec would then have to justify his decision to the shareholders.

The exec is in a position to make such a choice. And he may well be able to justify it to his shareholders without them calling for his neck - especially if the difference in costs isn't too big. But he also knows they may not be sympathetic in any way.

Has society crashed to such depths that it is now utterly reliant upon the legal system and its sophist priesthood to arbitrate good?



We're talking RIGHT and WRONG here. If I scheme against you at work and get you the sack, or sleep with your wife or girlfriend and give her the clap, or on your toilet seat, or cough over you whilst thick with flu, or yap on my phone two seats behind you at the cinema, or steal your car parking spot etc. etc. - do you just cheerfully carry on because, after all, I've not broken any laws?

Can you provide some authority for this legal obligation to maximise profits?



I want to read up on this.

Google "Dodge v. Ford Motor Company" or "eBay v. Newmark".



[i"A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end, and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits, or to the nondistribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes."[/i

Well yes, actually.



What would you expect me to do in your examples, beat you to a pulp ?

Well, I don't know. In the case of the foremost and I was your best friend, say, I expect you might.



But the punishment is irrelevant. The legal system is based on fundamental human precepts of justice - right and wrong - and not the other way around. And tax-dodging by the rich (irrespective of some high-priced accountant's actions few have access to) is wrong.