Apple

[What'sinaname]

Interested in how you think Google avoided $500 million in tax per year, that would imply net income of $1.67 billion.

Global net income is $US16 billion, or $A21 billion. Now Australia represents, say 2% of the global economy, so net income attributable to Australia might be 420 million. That also assumes the Australia contributes the same as the the US to Google's profit...I presume the IP (the value of the company) is developed offshore so why should Australia be compensated for something it did not contribute to?

So really, Australia net income should be much lower than $420 million. Let's assume it's half that, leaving $210 million net income, or tax of $63 million

[HAL]

Why now? Australia is my home.

[Mugwump]

^ Good reply, Tannin, as always.

Sorry if I made a straw man out of your post. I was responding to : "Pay them to sit of the beach if you like, you are still getting 100% of the public benefit they were providing working for the multi-national tax dodger (i.e., none) and at vastly lower cost. Or, if you want to be really cost-effective, pay them to be nurses, teachers, park rangers, street sweepers, policemen, road builders, social workers, whatever you like. And remember, you are still saving huge amounts of money doing this."

I was lost by your reasoning in that, because a corporation that pays zero corporate taxes can still create value to the host economy, so I don't think you save money by employing people to sit on the metaphorical beach rather than having people work for a corporate tax-dodger. The extent to which it does so depends, doubtless, on the business concerned.

Finally, yes, I agree that an hour spent on VPT is rarely wasted, but it is not always the best available use. Still, far better class of debate overall than you get on the football forum - even if the chances of changing anyone's mind (or clarifying one's own muddle) are similarly slim. Good luck with the work, brother.

[Tannin]

[watt price tully]