Wow! Cool. I didn't know that.

You are, apparently, unaware that they don't do this any more. The Bing map doesn't allow conversations between service members and the public. That's all done with and has been for quite a while. I really don't know why you are upset.

LOL! I have no idea where you got that from! That's too funny!

For you, I'll make my point very, very simple: Maybe this is a popular map but NORAD does not own "Santa" or the idea that Santa flies around on Christmas Eve. Also, because the "data" is fictitious, they don't actually own "Santa's track data". With me so far?

So, if this "map" was important to Google, nothing can stop them from creating their own "map of Santa's travel". So there is no actual problem for Google. Hence, this story is kind of silly.

I said nothing about it being a "waste of time". On the contrary, I suggested more people could easily get involved in this fantasy. Are you OK now?

I think a better title for this story would be "Apparently, NORAD owns 'Santa' and has now sold him to Microsoft"

Santa is a completely fictitious figure who does not go flying around on Christmas Eve!

And NORAD is not tracking a real thing!

And anyone, can make up a "track Santa" map application!

WTF?

If having a "track Santa" map is important to Google, I'm sure they can create just that. This story makes no sense at all.

OK, I'll answer more seriously, as if you had a point.

Nope, that was exactly what he said. His point was that Microsoft, Google, et.al. legally avoiding some taxes may have been legal but was immoral just like, for example, Nazi atrocities were. That is his choice for an example. At best, it is a very poor example. Right off the bat I can think of dozens of more appropriate examples. His example and "point" is an insult to holocaust victims and survivors.

Second, nope, what I said did not "prove his point". What part of what I said has anything to do with "proving his point" that legally avoiding taxes is immoral? Explain.

Third, I'd like to see any evidence that legally avoiding some taxes is, somehow, "immoral". What belief system requires us to try to pay maximum taxes as a moral requirement?

In other words, "nope".

Nope.

LOL! Never mind. I can't discuss this with someone who doesn't know basic accounting.

Huh? You must be responding to someone else's comment. That does not describe our conversation.

By the way, there certainly is no "moral requirement" to pay "sufficient taxes". That's ... um ... one of the craziest things I've ever heard. I do think that government has a moral responsibility to be very, very prudent and sane in how they spend our money -- and they certainly aren't -- not in the slightest.

If my tax money was never wasted, never used to buy votes, was never thrown away on useless projects, never spend on foreign wars I disapprove of, was always carefully spent on only necessary things, THEN you might have a case for your of "moral requirement" to pay enough. But that will never happen.

Sorry, you have absolutely no concept of what you are talking about. ALL operating expenses are included in a company's pricing - including their profit. Despite your strange belief, nothing is left out. Everything is included: taxes, rent, wages, suppliers, health care, utilities, ... everything. If this were not so, then companies would all go out of business.

You actually believe that the bean-counters would leave taxes out of their calculations?

Take some accounting courses and you should be able to clear this confusion up. Seriously.

Thanks for posting a response without too many insults. It is much easier to have a discussion with an adult.

You know the answer: Competition.

And that points out some of the problems with taxing corporations. Some countries have fewer (or no) taxes on corporations. Assuming other costs are pretty similar, their companies can sell for less. If we force our corporations to pay more in taxes, they will have to raise their prices to stay alive, and that means they will certainly lose business against some foreign competitors.

In other words, if we greatly increase the taxes for corporations, we are making them uncompetitive on the world market. And, no, it isn't "fairer" because it does not shift any taxes away from us. We still pay all those taxes with higher prices.

It's fine if everybody wants to severely tax all corporations -- but it just means we'll pay those taxes once-removed.

And note: that makes it a tax on everybody including the poorest. You think that's "fair"?

Protip: When you feel you have to insult people instead of just making your argument, you are a loser. Grow up.

Once again, that old canard about Google "not paying for it".

If you really believe that, why don't you trade expenses with Google? They pay your taxes, Internet costs, etc. and you pay theirs. Do you have any idea how much taxes Google pays? Do you have any idea how huge Google's Internet costs are?

Far from "not paying", Google pays an incredible amount. A lot more than you pay for what you use.

Why don't you stop telling lies?

I understand, but these two things are not equivalent. the RIAA, MPAA, et.al. are harming consumers. You may believe that Microsoft, Google, etc paying less taxes world wide is also "harming consumers" because they aren't paying their "fair share", but I don't see it that way at all. If these big corporations legally lower their taxes, they can charge lower prices to the consumers. Isn't this good?

Yes, I hear the next argument, "but then consumers have to pay more in taxes!"

So, let's say we force the big corporations to pay more in taxes. What happens? Does the executive pay go down? No. Does the shareholder profit go down? Probably not. What actually happens when a company's operating expenses go up (and that's all taxes are) is they raise prices. Get it? When we demand corporations pay more, we end up paying it.

We pay more whether it is direct or indirect. Ultimately, we end up paying. However, if we pay via higher prices, the corporations will probably skim a bit more profits out of it.

Instead of arguing who should pay more and more and more, why don't we discuss cutting government waste, earmarks, perks, bloat and unnecessary programs? That is the only thing that ultimately benefits us, the consumers.

And that is what's behind this bogus "outrage": The purpose is to shift the focus from trimming government bloat to who should "pay more".

Ultimately, who pays more? You and I.

OK, look. Who pays taxes -- ultimately? You think big corporations are ultimately paying this stuff? No. They add it into the price that the consumers pay. Obviously. Taxes are just one more part of "operating expenses". So, demanding the corporations "pay more" just means consumers have to pay more and the corporate officers and shareholders won't see any difference.

We may absolutely hate that the corporate officers take home such huge salaries and hate that shareholders demand profits over good products and customer satisfaction, but demanding that corporations "pay more" won't change that. It just means that we consumers will have to pay more.

This manufactured "outrage" will not help the consumers one tiny bit.