ABC1 be interesting to hear what he has to say

Nothing controversial was said when he addressed the National Press Club this morning.

He's a mine of information on foreign aid and how it can best be targeted to deliver results.

slammin said..

Love the flogging Gina The HUTT has copped.

yup thinking the same

lol at the twitter comment about this q&a episode being the best powerpoint presentation ever.

slammin said..

Love the flogging Gina The HUTT has copped.

Ha Ha Gina the Hutt.

Issa said..

Gates' answer to the issue of off-shoring profits to evade tax, didn't add up.

In what way?

He basically said "I comply with your laws, if you don't like what I am doing then change the law"

I don't have a problem with that answer - if our government doesn't like it then that should damned well change the law. That is their job you know...

Now my 5c : before trying to save the world (foreign aid) we should sort out our home probs and cut the foreign help budget, increase it if we have sorted all the home probs and have money left!

GalahOnTheBay said..

Issa said..

Gates' answer to the issue of off-shoring profits to evade tax, didn't add up.

In what way?

He basically said "I comply with your laws, if you don't like what I am doing then change the law"

I don't have a problem with that answer - if our government doesn't like it then that should damned well change the law. That is their job you know...

Correct.

Did Governments do their job in the past? Will Governments do their job in the future? Is Gina really happy to pay more tax? Was Kerry really happy to pay more tax? Didn't Gina and Kerry go out of their way to stack the issue by controlling media interests?

Microsoft, Google and Apple will ensure their profits land in the lowest tax jurisdiction. That is legal..... to an extent, subject to audit. We have 'transfer pricing' provisions in the tax act to ensure value leaves this country, on arms length terms. Good.

Global commerce has made commercial interests so large and powerful (by historical standards), that very few, if any governments, can write their tax laws without fear or favour. Does this ring true in light of the furore over MRRT?

Someone is asked to pay more tax and they go out their way to buy a TV station and print media empire, for the sole purpose of hysterically screaming 'axe the tax!', they aren't expressing the view they are happy to pay their taxes.

By global standards, Gina is an anorexic-hutt. A weak striker, with poor ground skills and inexperienced in the takedown. It's not hard for a multinational to apply pressure to get their way.

If global leadership were smarter, taxation would be more consistent. Unfortunately that will never happen, because a taxation system can be a potent form of competitive advantage.

So yes, I have a problem with the answer. The answer was unreasonable and not subject to scrutiny. TJ was too short on time to react.

Top marks to the young man who put the question. LEGEND.

Bang on Felix.

I was in the park the other day when I saw that a little girl was being mauled by a dog. As I was rushing to her aid however my own little girl fell over and skinned her knee. I figured I should sort out my own problems first so I applied a band-aid to her knee first. Then combed her hair that was a bit messed up.

Considering that we are living in a society with the highest living standards in history, and we are also at or near the top on a whole swathe of other indexes and so on, I don't think the above illustration is actually far from the sentiment being expressed about helping people in the third world, too, it's not like we're ignoring our own. (And it's oftentimes the same people that whinge about us needing to help our own first that then complain about social security and the like)

We ask a lot of Government and sometimes don't back them when they make changes.

Not being familiar with transfer pricing rules, I do know they are evolving continually. A game of catch up perhaps.

The responsibility for global rules goes beyond government.

The problem is for the accounting profession as well. A simple question such as what is profit, can produce different results depending on circumstance and country.

When I was a boy, the profession was going through a process of 'harmonisation' of international accounting standards. Harmonisation is well short of standardisation. The process is long and slow apparently.

Australian Accounting Standards Board was leading the way on harmonisation and writing international standards. Someone with more familiarity than me should throw in their ten cents worth and explain what happened with the process.

To throw it all back on government and suggest the players have no responsibility is certainly 'practical'.

Perhaps international law needs an equivalent of Part 4A from our tax act. Part 4A, says that a transaction without a sound commercial reason for being, is a tax dodge and out of order.

Gorgo said..

GalahOnTheBay said..

...

Did you watch the interview? Bill dodged a few questions but this one was not one of them - he was very clear about the government's role in fixing the "problem".

Yes I did watch the interview and yes he did dodge the question. They have deliberately created an artificial structure and a series of artificial transactions with the express purpose of avoiding tax. It's a scheme and a scam.

He lied about companies gladly paying legal taxes because his company and others have gone to great lengths to deliberately circumvent the law. What he has said is, "You make a law we can't get around and we'll pay tax. If we and our army of international tax lawyers can't find an way around it then we'll pay."

It's no different to James Hardie shutting up shop and moving to the Netherlands to avoid their liability for asbestosis. It's the same thing as a crooked builder ripping you off then going bankrupt, while his wife owns the house and the cars and the bank accounts.

Full credit to Gates for being a philanthropist and I was impressed how he handled himself. He did tend to prattle from time to time which is only reasonable considering some of the questions he was asked. He's still not the Messiah and he is a naughty boy.

I'm not so sure, I thought his answer was refreshingly free of spin. Much the same as Kerry Packer of several years ago. There is a healthy conflict of interests - the company wants to make a return on investment for the shareholder, the government wants the company to contribute to society. The mechanism available to the government is taxes. the question seems to be is it an even playing field i.e. if you have $x available to set up complex structures you pay less tax than the little company. Isn't the solution to that a government policy one? And that's what Gates is arguing?

I thought it was an amazingly thought provoking interview, with lots of tough questions and candid answers from a truly global perspective. Give me more of that and less of "moving forward" or "we'll stop the boats".