> Google UK Ltd, and other subsidiaries across mainland Europe, pay little tax because they are designated as providers of marketing services to Google Ireland Ltd, the Dublin-based subsidiary whose name appears on invoices to most non-U.S. clients.

> Google declares little profit in Ireland because the unit there sends almost all of the profit earned from the non-U.S. clients to the Bermudan affiliate, in the form of licence fees for the use of Google intellectual property.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/google-taxes-overse...

> Google Inc. avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company, almost double the total from three years before, filings show.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-10/google-rev...

> I'm afraid Google doesn't pay his taxes like we, the tax payers, think it should...

I am sure the same could be said of every company beyond certain size (200-300 employees comes to mind, but this is just a wild guess), regardless of industry.

This is even the same for individuals. If you try to file taxes yourself (or have your employer do it for you, if possible), you will end up paying a higher rate than if you had taken the good sense of forking $100USD to some accountant to give you some basic advice. Of course this only works if you are wealthy enough that those $100US are marginal compared with what you would end up paying in taxes using the DIY approach.

That's orthogonal to this discussion. Google never received Belgian research funding.

(I'm Belgian)

The Belgian case may be irrelevant, but more broadly it is very relevant - Google reduces their US tax burden in the same way.

The fact that corporate entities are able to shift their profits to places with favorable tax regimes mean that the calculations about the assumptions about increased tax receipts from business activity generated by publicly funded research are at least partially wrong.

Since when is Google a he? Perhaps it is some quirk of your language that makes the direct translation take masculine form?

Edit: Sorry if this came off as rude, was not intended.

Instead of just criticising, maybe you could suggest how parent should improve? I'm always very confused about what personal pronoun to use for organisations or companies.

Not criticizing, first I was confused then I realized it was likely to be a side-effect of being a native speaker of German or another language. Sorry if it came out wrong.

The singular impersonal "it" when talking about Google as a corporate entity (its component personnel would likely be "Googlers"). So "Google pays its taxes" and "Google doesn't pay its taxes".

It's standard in british english to refer to all companies/coporate entities/groups as "they." Personally I enjoy the moral implications of this.

Isn't "they" used sometimes as well? At least it's frequently used for "police"...

You would use "they" to refer to the class of people who are police but "it" to refer to organizations like a police department.

>Interestingly, here in Belgium

This clued me in as to why someone might call google 'he.'