Google Jet Fleet Loses a Pentagon Fuel Perk

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It's nice to know that, while the general public gets robbed at the gas pump, our tax dollars have been subsidizing jet fuel for Google's corporate jets for the last five years. :eek:

Google Inc. founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin may have to dig deeper to operate their fleet of private jets, after the U.S. Department of Defense ended a little-known arrangement that for years allowed the tech billionaires to travel on sharply discounted jet fuel bought from the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
 
Well of course the uber-rich need discounts on necessities like gas for their 767.
And complaining about never having paid state fuel taxes? Pfft. They dodge most other taxes, why should fuel taxes be special?
 
yikes what the hell is this? I tought google made money.. its really looking more and more like a front
 
Can't blame Google for taking free money from the government.
While the rest of us suckers pay for it!
 
When your company start up was funded by the Government.
When you become the biggest lobbyist in the tech industry.
When your chairman pays for Obama's inauguration party, twice.
When your chairman makes a trip to North Korea when the DOJ starts to investigate the company.
When that investigation is then called off.

...you might be Google.

and a little discounted jet fuel is probably the least of our problems. :)
 
Read further:

In explaining the unusual arrangement, NASA officials have pointed to a related agreement by the Google executives to perform scientific flights and other NASA-related transport. That mostly has involved flights by an Alpha jet, a small trainer bought by the Google executives and used by NASA to measure atmospheric greenhouse gases and ozone.
Click to expand...
 
Did any of you people 'lower your self' to actually read the article, or did you just get all butt hurt over a link with the misleading title?

They were paying cost plus for the fuel, so NASA actually made a bit of profit on the fuel. Where's the 'subsidy'?

NASA also charged the Federal Tax. Again, where's the 'subsidy'?

Granted, no State Tax was collected, but do any of you think that the Google tax accounts are stupid enough to try to avoid paying it to the state?

Then there's the 1.3 million, plus cost recovery that they pay in rent. That's a 'subsidy'?

Not to mention that Google absorbed the operating costs of all the 155 research missions that they did for NASA.

Granted they did get a DISCOUNT on the fuel, but in reading the article I see NO subsidy, nor any cost to the taxpayers.

To the contrary, it looks like the taxpayers actually came out ahead.

Reading comprehension folks...it's important.
 
Get used to it. This is how all leftist governments operate.

I was just reading an article about how the late Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's "man of the people" and "hero of the poor" always blaming the "evil rich" was quietly amassing a personal fortune and made sure all his top supporters became millionaires.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Get used to it. This is how all leftist governments operate.

I was just reading an article about how the late Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's "man of the people" and "hero of the poor" always blaming the "evil rich" was quietly amassing a personal fortune and made sure all his top supporters became millionaires.
Click to expand...

Today I learn that NASA runs the government and that in 2007 Chavez was in charge of it.
 
RAF_OldBuzzard said:
Did any of you people 'lower your self' to actually read the article, or did you just get all butt hurt over a link with the misleading title?
Click to expand...

People don't read beyond the headlines these days. Its just HEADLINE -> mad dash to comment section to type words.
 
RAF_OldBuzzard said:
Did any of you people 'lower your self' to actually read the article, or did you just get all butt hurt over a link with the misleading title?

They were paying cost plus for the fuel, so NASA actually made a bit of profit on the fuel. Where's the 'subsidy'?

NASA also charged the Federal Tax. Again, where's the 'subsidy'?

Granted, no State Tax was collected, but do any of you think that the Google tax accounts are stupid enough to try to avoid paying it to the state?

Then there's the 1.3 million, plus cost recovery that they pay in rent. That's a 'subsidy'?

Not to mention that Google absorbed the operating costs of all the 155 research missions that they did for NASA.

Granted they did get a DISCOUNT on the fuel, but in reading the article I see NO subsidy, nor any cost to the taxpayers.

To the contrary, it looks like the taxpayers actually came out ahead.

Reading comprehension folks...it's important.
Click to expand...

Subsidy:

1. Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. Read more:

By providing a business access to a product at special government discounted rates not available to competitors, they are boosting Google's bottom line to the detriment of their competitors. There may not be a direct cost to taxpayers, but it "costs" other businesses via a competitive disadvantage. Providing such advantages to businesses the administration prefers (like campaign donors) could easily be used to harm businesses they disapprove of.

As far as "absorbing" the cost of "research missions", the quid pro quo was access to government runways and aircraft storage facilities which likely would have cost far more than those "missions", which mostly consisted of measuring atmospheric data on flights they were already going to take.

As a private pilot, I'd gladly let nasa stick a thermometer on my helicopter if they covered my landing and parking fees.

You may have adequate reading comprehension, but you're a very shallow thinker.
 
This airfield also offers unique privacy benefits to Google, in that it's closed except to government and Google flights.
 
Kueller said:
This airfield also offers unique privacy benefits to Google, in that it's closed except to government and Google flights.
Click to expand...

It's closed to only Google because Google finished paying for the hanger retrofit when NASA/government was going to stop it due to no money.
 
So, what are the best YouTube and Google search alternatives?

/never thought in a million years that I'd even be considering switching from android to an iPhone.........
 
Lith1um said:
So, what are the best YouTube and Google search alternatives?

/never thought in a million years that I'd even be considering switching from android to an iPhone.........
Click to expand...

So wait .. you're going to switch off of Google for this, but you chose one of the biggest tax abusers to jump to? I'd think RIM might be a tad better choice.
 
Xrave said:
It's closed to only Google because Google finished paying for the hanger retrofit when NASA/government was going to stop it due to no money.
Click to expand...


Google paid a paltry $32 million to renovate a hanger worth 5 times as much, and were given a sweetheart exclusive long term lease deal by the government at far below market rates.
 
Spidey329 said:
So wait .. you're going to switch off of Google for this, but you chose one of the biggest tax abusers to jump to? I'd think RIM might be a tad better choice.
Click to expand...

I don't like Apple, but following tax law is not "abuse". Do you pay more in taxes than the absolute minimum you can legally?

There's a big difference between this and the favors Google is getting from the govt.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
I don't like Apple, but following tax law is not "abuse". Do you pay more in taxes than the absolute minimum you can legally?
Click to expand...

Actually yes I do pay more taxes than the absolute minimum I could legally.

If I chose to pay lawyers and foreign bankers instead of my taxes I could get my tax rate down to what Apple/Google/GE/Dow ect pay. But since I would only be dodging tens of thousands in taxes and the lawyers and bankers would start by charging me millions, it's cheaper just to pay the taxes.
Your question however was not whether it was cheaper to pay my taxes or pay my lawyer to dodge taxes.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Google paid a paltry $32 million to renovate a hanger worth 5 times as much, and were given a sweetheart exclusive long term lease deal by the government at far below market rates.
Click to expand...

Although that might be the case, even at a paltry $32M, they were the only private entity to even offer to do it, otherwise the hangar would have sat unfinished. Only once they completed the job and started using it for personal jet storage did all the other tech companies in the Bay area start complaining.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Subsidy:

1. Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. Read more:

By providing a business access to a product at special government discounted rates not available to competitors, they are boosting Google's bottom line to the detriment of their competitors. There may not be a direct cost to taxpayers, but it "costs" other businesses via a competitive disadvantage. Providing such advantages to businesses the administration prefers (like campaign donors) could easily be used to harm businesses they disapprove of.

As far as "absorbing" the cost of "research missions", the quid pro quo was access to government runways and aircraft storage facilities which likely would have cost far more than those "missions", which mostly consisted of measuring atmospheric data on flights they were already going to take.

As a private pilot, I'd gladly let nasa stick a thermometer on my helicopter if they covered my landing and parking fees.

You may have adequate reading comprehension, but you're a very shallow thinker.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.

Now, show me where they received that.
 
RAF_OldBuzzard said:
Fixed that for you.

Now, show me where they received that.
Click to expand...

One reason commercial prices are higher is that they include sales tax levied by California on all fuel sales to private jets, currently 8.75% in Moffett's locale. The Pentagon said it collected only federal taxes, and H211 was responsible for remitting any local taxes owed. H211's Mr. Ambrose said the Pentagon's invoices included "all applicable taxes."
Click to expand...

Not sure how it works out legally speaking with the federal gov't helping Elgoog avoid state taxes...
 
Kueller said:
Actually yes I do pay more taxes than the absolute minimum I could legally.

If I chose to pay lawyers and foreign bankers instead of my taxes I could get my tax rate down to what Apple/Google/GE/Dow ect pay. But since I would only be dodging tens of thousands in taxes and the lawyers and bankers would start by charging me millions, it's cheaper just to pay the taxes.
Your question however was not whether it was cheaper to pay my taxes or pay my lawyer to dodge taxes.
Click to expand...

Kind of irks me when people use charged phrases like "loophole" or in your case "dodge" to make it seem like it's wrong to try and reduce your taxes as much as possible. If it's allowed in the tax code, it's allowed period.

I know it's semantics but as a soon-to-be accountant, it ticks me off when people think I'm doing something wrong by following the law.
 
Xee said:
Kind of irks me when people use charged phrases like "loophole" or in your case "dodge" to make it seem like it's wrong to try and reduce your taxes as much as possible. If it's allowed in the tax code, it's allowed period.

I know it's semantics but as a soon-to-be accountant, it ticks me off when people think I'm doing something wrong by following the law.
Click to expand...

What annoys me is the culture of lawyers and loopholers we've allowed to fester.
Accounting arrangements like the double irish (and variations) are about as much following the law as someone who drives by a speed limit sign at 55mph, then accelerates as fast as possible, until they must brake to hit 55mph at the next speed limit sign. I mean, the law only applies exactly where there's a sign, right? Kind of like profits are only reported by subsidiaries in countries where there's little-to-no tax on them. All the subsidiaries operating in countries that do expect taxes for having access to their markets...they unfortunately just break even, or operate at a loss and collect government subsidies, rebates and incentives while doing so. Leeches.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Subsidy:

1. Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. Read more:

By providing a business access to a product at special government discounted rates not available to competitors, they are boosting Google's bottom line to the detriment of their competitors. There may not be a direct cost to taxpayers, but it "costs" other businesses via a competitive disadvantage. Providing such advantages to businesses the administration prefers (like campaign donors) could easily be used to harm businesses they disapprove of.

As far as "absorbing" the cost of "research missions", the quid pro quo was access to government runways and aircraft storage facilities which likely would have cost far more than those "missions", which mostly consisted of measuring atmospheric data on flights they were already going to take.

As a private pilot, I'd gladly let nasa stick a thermometer on my helicopter if they covered my landing and parking fees.

You may have adequate reading comprehension, but you're a very shallow thinker.
Click to expand...

You guys are over reacting.

This is the problem you guys are bitching about: Since Google is renting parking space at the NASA airfield located near Google headquarters, Google was allowed to buy fuel there because it is the ONLY fuel available at the particular airfield. NASA was fine with this as Google is paying to rent parking space and Google agreed to sponsor NASA testing. Heck, Google even bought a plane for NASA to use.

So where does this sound like the Government is unfairly doing anything? Rent a spot at a gov't airfield and pay your way at the only gas station there? From the taxpayer perspective, it sounds like a good use of otherwise unrented government space that reduces taxpayer spending and the Government didn't lose any money on it.
 
Xee said:
Kind of irks me when people use charged phrases like "loophole" or in your case "dodge" to make it seem like it's wrong to try and reduce your taxes as much as possible. If it's allowed in the tax code, it's allowed period.

I know it's semantics but as a soon-to-be accountant, it ticks me off when people think I'm doing something wrong by following the law.
Click to expand...
Forge forward and do what you must..'loopholes' are PLACED there for companies, no doubt about it.
 
Uvaman said:
Forge forward and do what you must..'loopholes' are PLACED there for companies, no doubt about it.
Click to expand...

Loop holes are not 'placed' there, they are a by-product of some overactive politician who thinks he can drum up one more tax income scheme that no one can avoid, only to find there is absolutely no way for their political team to understand the tax code well enough to successfully foresee every possible scenario.
 
I don't blame Google. I blame the dipshits in Washington that let this crap happen. This (and many other things like this) are simply examples of why our taxes are higher than they should be. Cut the "no benefit to the taxpayer" bullshit and pay down the debt or take care of the homeless.
 
Kueller said:
This airfield also offers unique privacy benefits to Google, in that it's closed except to government and Google flights.
Click to expand...

A bit ironic, isn't it, considering that Google is probably one of the leading corporate enemies against privacy.
 
BBA said:
You guys are over reacting.

This is the problem you guys are bitching about: Since Google is renting parking space at the NASA airfield located near Google headquarters, Google was allowed to buy fuel there because it is the ONLY fuel available at the particular airfield. NASA was fine with this as Google is paying to rent parking space and Google agreed to sponsor NASA testing. Heck, Google even bought a plane for NASA to use.

So where does this sound like the Government is unfairly doing anything? Rent a spot at a gov't airfield and pay your way at the only gas station there? From the taxpayer perspective, it sounds like a good use of otherwise unrented government space that reduces taxpayer spending and the Government didn't lose any money on it.
Click to expand...

As a tax payer it seems they could just as easily have charged Google fair market value rather than cost-plus. NASA could certainly use the cash...

Additionally, the fuel that Google was authorized to purchase at the airfield was, contractually, to be used for executing gov't contracts and test flights ONLY. But google was using it for trips all over the globe (including to caribbean tax havens) for personal travel. What I would liken this situation most closely to is something like misuse of Off-Road/Red Dye/Farm Diesel.
 
BBA said:
Loop holes are not 'placed' there, they are a by-product of some overactive politician who thinks he can drum up one more tax income scheme that no one can avoid, only to find there is absolutely no way for their political team to understand the tax code well enough to successfully foresee every possible scenario.
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to go along with your line of reasoning...if a legislator ever actually wrote their own Bill. But they don't write any of their own legislation, they're handed a draft by some lobbyist, who absolutely did PLACE that loophole there (and a dozen others in case the first 1-11 are caught), for whatever special interests they were paid to represent.
 
Kueller said:
As a tax payer it seems they could just as easily have charged Google fair market value rather than cost-plus. NASA could certainly use the cash.
Click to expand...

The government is only allowed to tax fuel by a certain percentage, hence it's cost plus the tax allowed. Just because everywhere else tends to add other charges to their fuel price the federal government has to run within restrictions.

This is no different than using a military base gas station, fuel is cheap but not meant for private vehicles.
 
Kueller said:
I mean, the law only applies exactly where there's a sign, right?
Click to expand...
Umm, no. The speed limit applies from that sign to the next sign, it then changes (or remains the same) to whatever the next sign says.
 
BBA said:
The government is only allowed to tax fuel by a certain percentage, hence it's cost plus the tax allowed. Just because everywhere else tends to add other charges to their fuel price the federal government has to run within restrictions.

This is no different than using a military base gas station, fuel is cheap but not meant for private vehicles.
Click to expand...

This isn't a tax, it is a service they're providing to Google as part of a lease contract and public-private research program, the price for fuel can be written in said contract however the parties agree upon. Elgoog's lawcountants just chose the terms that were most favorable for them. Then broke those terms repeatedly by using this fuel source for non-government related trips.
 
Kueller said:
This isn't a tax, it is a service they're providing to Google as part of a lease contract and public-private research program, the price for fuel can be written in said contract however the parties agree upon. Elgoog's lawcountants just chose the terms that were most favorable for them. Then broke those terms repeatedly by using this fuel source for non-government related trips.
Click to expand...

Ok, you did not read the article I see.

Nothing in the contract specified the cost of the fuel. The price of fuel on any government base is set by actual cost of the fuel when it is procured, plus what ever else the government is authorized to charge. The price changes when the base resupplies, plain and simple. It's not google's fault that fuel at any non-government supplier can manipulate fuel prices at a whim (and they do that just about daily around here).

What I get out of that article is this other guy, who represents a company that fixes prices for 'corporate' jet fuel, was not able to sell his overpriced jet fuel to google, so they raised a big stink about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top