By adopting the "Don't be evil" motto Google makes this about ethics. If you say that you are going to hold yourself to an ethical standard, that means you will be judged by your ethics, not by your adherence to the letter of the law.
But really, the continuing argument that because you like Google Maps it's therefore better that Google gets to keep all of its tax euros out of the hands of underfunded public services is close to incoherent.
Unless you can show that those services are in the same sort of existential danger as high-end cancer treatment is in the UK, the argument is specious.
But really, the continuing argument that because you like Google Maps it's therefore better that Google gets to keep all of its tax euros out of the hands of underfunded public services is close to incoherent.
Unless you can show that those services are in the same sort of existential danger as high-end cancer treatment is in the UK, the argument is specious.
a. I did not say that Google shouldn't pay any taxes.
b. Whether you believe something to be 'underfunded' is a matter of perspective.
c. Not funding cancer research is not equivalent to not doing good or creating value.
I think you do have a point in that Google's slogan does make this about ethics. I still maintain that Google can do more good with more efficiency than any government.
I still maintain that Google can do more good with more efficiency than any government.
That's fine, but there are plenty of other people who disagree with the assertion. If the money is in the hands of the government, at least those other voices get a say in how it is spent.
The opportunity cost for anything you spend $3bn on is very high. A government could choose to spend it on cancer research or space ships. Google can really only spend it on a very narrow range of products -- and can't combine it with other serious numbers required to do the really heavy lifting, like that required to fix the disastrous public plumbing in the US.
If Google paying its taxes would mean that it couldn't do all the stuff it currently is, that's one thing. But they've got $33bn sitting in the bank. They can more than afford to pay their taxes and continue creating Wave and AdWords.
If we're going to be strictly factual about it, Google is actually spending money on cancer research and spaceships; http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/oncampus/08/10/google.html describes one of a number of grants that are going to researchers on, among other things, cancer; Larry Brilliant himself suffered from thyroid cancer. Also, Google bought SpaceShipOne, which is now on display at the Googleplex. Presumably Scaled Composites is using the proceeds from the sale for spaceship research. Sergey is going to space in a private space flight next year, assuming all goes well: http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.vie...
There are many other investments in cancer research and space travel being made by individual Googlers.
However, it is perhaps more to the point that both Google Search and Google Academic are crucial research tools for medical research and for aerospace engineering, as for many other fields.
Both directly and through its employees, Google is also funding substantial applied research in crucial areas such as renewable energy production, genomics, public health, and ground transportation.
I don't know what you mean by "disastrous public plumbing in the US". My experience with US municipal water supplies and sewers during the 29 years that I lived there was that they were inexpensive, reliable, safe, and efficient. My experience with water supplies (and sometimes sewers) in other countries has been much worse.
A personal note: I haven't ever tried to work for Google because of, essentially, ethical concerns: I am in danger of having to live in a world where a large fraction of our communications are intermediated by a single company, and I think Google's cultish secrecy is corrosive to the values of Silicon Valley. However, I think Google should only be dinged for its real faults, not imagined ones.
Sorry, that wasn't really the intention of my example, which was to show the range of government spending. Ultimately, though, it boils down to this: Google isn't doing anything with this money, except earning less than 1% interest on it.
Google can afford to pay taxes in the countries in which it operates. That it does not, while obviously legally defensible, reflects poorly on the other work it does.
Public plumbing: the US infrastructure is badly out of date, and unable to meet most projected demands for expansion. The US Geological survey projects that 1.7 trillion gallons of water are lost through leaks in the system each year -- about $2.6bn in value. http://www.epa.gov/awi/distributionsys.html
The fact that Google isn't doing anything with the money doesn't mean the money isn't being put to use. If the money is in standard banks, it is being used to fund mortgages and credit cards. If it's invested in the market, it is being used by other companies to expand their businesses. If it's invested in municipal bonds, it is allowing cities to develop infrastructure. If it's in various countries' treasury bonds, it is funding those governments directly (since many countries are funding themselves on debt instead of or in addition to raising taxes).
I don't know why you think paying taxes is morally commendable. So far Google hasn't, as far as I know, invaded any countries or funded any coups.
$2.6 billion per year is about US$9 per person. Another point of comparison, if you're worried about conservation of fresh water, is that the Mississippi River discharges 110 trillion gallons of fresh water per year into the Gulf of Mexico, where it turns brackish. So the plumbing doesn't sound like a disastrous problem to me, particularly compared with problems like 1% of the adult US population being imprisoned, companies being raided for selling chemistry kits to kids, a decaying passenger train system that commonly delivers passengers several hours late, and government bailouts to pay the bonuses of the bankers who wrecked the economy.
But really, the continuing argument that because you like Google Maps it's therefore better that Google gets to keep all of its tax euros out of the hands of underfunded public services is close to incoherent.
Unless you can show that those services are in the same sort of existential danger as high-end cancer treatment is in the UK, the argument is specious.