*only when I hear those people who cry "tax avoidance" at major multinationals, volunteer to pay GST on the stuff they buy on the internet.*

Actually Pericles, that would not concern me in the slightest.
In fact most of these companies have Australian websites and
charge Australians GST anyhow. Just go an buy an Ipad from
Apple and you will be charged GST. But the Ipad will be shipped
direct from Chenzen. Most of the stuff that I have bought on
the internet from overseas, has been about availability, price
is only one consideration and 10% is simply not worth worrying
about. Some electronic gear is a bit different, where I've bought
things from Hong Kong for 50 bucks, which the locals want to
charge 200$ for. I'll happily pay the GST on the 50 bucks.

Dear Pericles,

An interesting take.

Since I am yet to purchase anything overseas via the Internet will you allow me a license to continue to whinge?

I suppose the easy answer is that most of those buying from overseas have at least met their primary tax obligation by paying income tax first. By any fair measure Google has not. Yet they have over 500 workers here, they use our roads and other services while our police, army and government provide a relatively stable and well off clientele for them to profit from.

While Google may indeed be operating within the letter of the law, or more accurately a loop hole, they are certainly not acting within the spirit of the law. The sooner the inadequacy is addressed the better.

I think the issue needs to be taken seriously by all Australians but most particularly our law makers.

Don't you think, csteele, that google is at least as valuable to us all as the Roman Catholic Church, that pays no tax on its eight billion [yes billion] dollar annual profits? Or the Uniting and Anglican churches whose profits exceed two billion annually, and all the other religious corporations whose vast profits are not subject to tax? They don't even pay rates, making every citizen's rate and tax bills more expensive!

Dear ybgrip,

Not sure I can argue with you on that score though I suppose some of the religious charities do have a role in feeding and clothing the under-privileged. I was also going to include educating them but I concede Google has a claim to that space as well.

I'm wondering if this is a kind of growing modern American sensibility. Google’s founders are relatively young but tax avoidance/minimization is certainly a huge theme within the company.

We read also this week of one of the founders of Facebook deciding to renounce his US citizenship and take up residence in Singapore to avoid a $600 million dollar tax bill when the company is floated.

It screams of a me-ism that I find pretty alien and depressing. But perhaps I'm getting old.

Few religious charities spend their corporation’s money, they are funded from the public purse. Charity status is decided by the government, and they give automatic preference to organisations that believe in an invisible supernatural overlord—no matter how bizarre. That’s why so many genuine charities are unable to access the tax-free and government subsidised status of the religious ones, that too frequently cherry pick their recipients. When the economic crunch arrived, the Anglicans announced a reduction in their charitable work because it would have cut into their profits, which remained the same.
I don’t think humans have changed at all over the millennia. That’s what we are—looking after number one. We’d be extinct as a species if we hadn’t. The scene’s changed but the impulse remains. Grabbing all the profits without paying for them is traditional, did the English colonisers pay for Australia? New Zealand? They’re paying for much of Africa and India and Pakistan now, but that’s a different story. Who got the wool profits? Who’s getting the mining boom profits? Not the common folk. There’s no difference between tax avoidance and Palmer raking in billions just because he ‘owns’ the right to mine all over Queensland.

More nefarious dealings on behalf of IT companies.

Apple it seems is on a mission to escape the 30% tax on profits in the US. In 2009 it paid 24.8% which I could almost live with. By 2010 it was 14.7% then last year it had fallen to 9.8%.

Next was a story on Huffington Post about Yahoo.
"Yahoo's interim CEO Ross Levinsohn said the stake sale provides clarity for Yahoo shareholders. Levinsohn stepped into the role earlier this month after Yahoo cast aside CEO Scott Thompson because his official biography included a college degree that he never received."

"Thompson had been working on a complex deal earlier this year that would have allowed Yahoo to escape taxes, but it fell apart. The deal announced Sunday is taxable."

Why is this so matter of fact? Surely this sort of behavior should be condemned in any democracy. Why isn't it?