Caporegime
I don't imagine he's in charge of a major public corporation who are currently embroiled in a tax avoidance argument.
May be wrong though!
Does Google Chief's bashfulness prove pay at the top is skewed.
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
I don't imagine he's in charge of a major public corporation who are currently embroiled in a tax avoidance argument.
May be wrong though!
No, but he is taking public money (student loan) with no intention of paying it back despite earning enough from his redundancy package to have a comfortable life.
How is that related to an individuals salary within a private organisation?l
If amigafan feels we should know this guys salary, then we should know amigafans too.
That's not true. The London guys directly run several revenue raising activities, including Android technical consulting and creative advertisement services.
He's a mature student I believe, he has no salary.
Is amigafans employer a known tax avoider?
Actually I think his last employer was named and shamed for tax avoidance.
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Reminds me of this....
Suspended
I don't agree with legislated salary caps. Private companies should be free to pay their employees as much as they like.
It's not at all. But tiny people will feel all 'jealous' and what other childish emotions so there's no benefit for him to mention it at all. I for one hope he's on 200 million a year and it comes out eventually
Another wonderful example of grandstanding by a committee chair.
I'm less interested in why it's supposedly "our business", which it isn't in my opinion, but the answer to his implied question, which was how it's relevant to the subject of the committee's work. And my answer would have been much the same as his, which is that I'll put together a written answer .... if my lawyers say I'm required to answer such an impertinent question. If I'm not, mind your own business Madam Chairperson.
I'm less interested in why it's supposedly "our business", which it isn't in my opinion, but the answer to his implied question, which was how it's relevant to the subject of the committee's work. And my answer would have been much the same as his, which is that I'll put together a written answer .... if my lawyers say I'm required to answer such an impertinent question. If I'm not, mind your own business Madam Chairperson.
Man of Honour
He should have asked her how much she takes home in expenses.
Again, why is that relevant?
Why should a private company have to reveal the salary of its employees simply because its being investigated for something that isn't illegal?
If your going to go for the "well he works for a company accused of X" argument then surely the request should be for every single employees salary, rather than just cherry picking a top name in order to try and make a stupid point that is entirely irrelevant.
The stage is this tax investigation thing, but the question of how much he earns is no different to walking up to anyone in the street and asking them what their salary is. Or asking someone on a forum.
I don't see what his salary has to do with Google paying tax. Legally (and that's the word that counts) Google didn't have to pay anything and they would get away with it.
It's up to the Government to close the loopholes and not rely on companies giving them money. They moan about legal avoidence well then close the loopholes.
M.
It's up to the Government to close the loopholes and not rely on companies giving them money. They moan about legal avoidence well then close the loopholes.
M.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,590
I wouldn't care if people just paid their taxes like we all have to and stopped using mental gymnastics to justify their high salaries.
But the fact remains, excessive greed is ruining this world and will ultimately be our downfall tbh.
But the fact remains, excessive greed is ruining this world and will ultimately be our downfall tbh.
Last edited:
Quite, what the hell has it got to do with any of us what he's paid? Use of the "I've got nothing to hide" phrase should be banned as it's just so ignorant. I would react in exactly the same way in a public setting.
The people who need to know what I earn are myself, my wife and the taxman[sic].
Exactly. Ignoring the whole stupid tax debate thing entirely, his salary would likely be confidential among his peers at work too. He isn't going to announce his salary during a publicly recorded questioning about tax, just like he isn't going to walk into the canteen at Google at lunchtime and announce it.
Its as unrelated and as much "none of our business" as asking him his sexual preference or favorite flavor of bubble gum.
Anyone who thinks its got anything at all to do with the tax avoidance investigation is doing nothing more than demonstrating their complete ignorance at what the whole tax avoidance thing is about.
Its as unrelated and as much "none of our business" as asking him his sexual preference or favorite flavor of bubble gum.
Anyone who thinks its got anything at all to do with the tax avoidance investigation is doing nothing more than demonstrating their complete ignorance at what the whole tax avoidance thing is about.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Your age is not a private matter, it is just considered rude to embarrass an older woman by asking how old she is. Asking a young woman her age is not considered a faux pas in the same way.
Financial affairs on the other hand are regarded as private affairs in the Anglo world. It's on a very different level to asking a woman her age.