Murdoch tells G20 gov'ts to take a back seat for growth

Murdoch did not refer to the Time Warner bid, which was rejected by the U.S.

Rich man's frustrations, shrug off, move on. G20 has to look after billions of people not only 1% rich VIP.

Why do so many of these super rich feel that they do not need to pay taxes? Or their fair share. Nobody likes to be overly taxed, but the society these people live in would not exist without the services they use, which come from paying taxes. By the way Ruppert,, thanks for Fox News and your other right wing rags for getting the US into so many conflicts that the US needs all the tax revenues it can get!

In plainer words, let ;'WE' the rich get richer and all others starve and pay the taxes 'WE' do not.

MarkX, well, in the past the super rich didn't pay tax, they received it. They sent their thugs into the surrounding villages to haul off 10% of what was produced there. Food, meat, pretty girls.

The super rich of today are still doing this. It's just not awfully popular to do it openly, and the last thing they would want would be another revolution, so they make it look as if they are not doing it.

Richard Murdoch is one of these.

Im going to get out the worlds tiniest violin and play an ode to Murchoch`s woes.

How dare countries actually try to prevent tax evasion by billioinaires? The nerve.

I am NOT a big fan of Rupert Murdoch, but he does have a point. The historical record shows that government has no real understanding of finance, or economics. Look at the sky-high deficits, reckless taxation (on individuals, and business alike), and the red-tape.

This isn't to say that corporations shouldn't pay their fair share, but to impose huge tax burdens on a business, of any size, is economically unsound. Entrepreneurs' businesses are especially vulnerable in their first five years; government red tape, and high taxes do not help them.

I do think Mr Murdoch is crying in his money though. Large corporations are treated much more fairly than working people who face higher taxes on their earning-without the same write-offs available to business.

Government should act more as a facilitator, not a driver, of the economy. Keep taxes low across the board, make regulation simple, eliminate red-tape, cut wasteful spending, and the economy will grow.

Many corporations in the US actually receive far more benefits from the Federal government than they effectively pay (after all of the creative tax accounting takes place). This is a problem for middle class and other taxpayers who are paying heavily for these benefits: (military protection of overseas assets, patent enforcements/court costs, direct subsidies for R&D, and many others).

As for profit-shifting, I'm all for it as long as we individuals are all allowed to do it. For example, I want to register my residence in a Caribbean tax have and deal with my tax and other obligations there, while working and and living in Japan, where I can benefit from the social security, infrastructure and opportunities here. Yeah, let's have it!

These benefits should be restricted to the super-duper rich.

Without these regulations, Murdoch will own all of the free press and do whatever the heck he wants.

Think of the character name Magnussen in BBC's Sherlock Holmes. That's a portrayal of Murdoch for his media influence in the UK.

Now he wants to buy TW including his newscorp rival CNN and create one of the most sensationalizing news media in the world. That is against every bone in my body. There must be some form of anti-trust against what he's doing.

@highball

That's what capitalism is all about. Good for him, if he has the money and TW will take the bid, why not? He has every right to do as he pleases and so does TW. You make it seem as if being rich is just so God awful.

Despot. Megalomanic. Liar. Peddler in misery and dead teenager's voice mails. Out on his ear in the UK. Hopefully the US and Oztralia soon too.

My blood pressure goes up when I think of the number of local, state and federal regulations we have in our lives today,” Murdoch told a meeting of the Business 20 leaders in Sydney, after his Twenty-First Century Fox Inc made an audacious $80 billion offer for Time Warner Inc.

“That is just in America. Don’t even get me started on the European Union.”

someone should tell him about the EU so his blood pressure goes thru the roof. this old buzzard has been a force for bad in media - maybe he should have a fatal seizure.

Ignoring the messenger, I have to say I agree with a lot of the message.

Smaller government, richer people.

fxgai, some would get richer of course. The People however would be poorer, less safe and no doubt homeless.

Healthy economy is useless if the benefit is not shared fairly. And I am not saying entrepreneurs who create job and value do not deserve their fair parts. But billionaires - growing in number and wealth - speculating and telling the world how to do start to piss me off seriously.

someone should tell him about the EU so his blood pressure goes thru the roof. this old buzzard has been a force for bad in media - maybe he should have a fatal seizure.

What a wonderful thing to say. I remember when a news anchor on the Obama network wanted to take Cheney's pace maker out, kick it around for awhile and stuff it back in his chest. Why is it that liberals hate the rich. What's wrong with having power and money, he earned it, if people get jealous and don't like it, go out, work and make it yourself. wishing for someone's demise shows how jealous a person can really be. He earned it and I wish the guy much success, if it works out, it does, if it doesn't, he's still a multi-Billionaire. Good for him.

Here's a tip: whatever Rupert Murdoch says, DO THE OPPOSITE!!!

I disagree, in fact, let the markets dictate and or let the best man win with the most amount of cash flow if you have it, go for it.

mukashiyokatta Here's a tip: whatever Rupert Murdoch says, DO THE OPPOSITE!!!

absolutely agreed

Love all these upvotes for everyone against Murdoch and the rich - I wonder what would happen if Walmart, Time Warner, Comcast, and all these other big companies disappeared. Everyone would be so much better with overpriced mom and pop shops and a dearth of standards of quality, no ?

All he's saying is that other countries have tax rates well below the US's, and that Obama is trying to trap companies that try to move to a lower-tax rate domicile. It makes companies harder to diversify and discourages entrepreneurship.

I think we all enjoy bashing those either more successful or who hold more power than us - but until we actually experience what they go through and the decisions they have to make, it's really not right for us to make outlandish assumptions on topics we know nothing about.

These comments are amazing. How blind you people are. Murdoch is completely right. The parasites we call government is pillaging everyone and instead of demanding they stop, instead it's complain about rich guy Murdoch. Well how about some reality. Murdoch, Bill gates, Klein Rowling, Oprah Winfrey, Jeff bezos, w as Kmart, Facebook, NBC,Toyota and etc... have never stolen anything from me and they did not get rich on my back, I recieved products I paid for and used.

But, every politician in the world is rich because they stoke it. Every government typically confiscated 40 to 100% of a nations economy. They line their pockets with our money, they hold a gun to your head to take what they want and control as much of you as they can. They Do it using the regulations Murdoch complained about. It amazes me how a group we call government is able to lie cheat and steal so they can be rich and live Well, all on the backs of others and yet the victims, the sheep who allow government to pillage and oppress, these people completely ignore all of it and complain about a guy like Murdoch. Try growing a brain sheeple.

Love all these upvotes for everyone against Murdoch and the rich - I wonder what would happen if Walmart, Time Warner, Comcast, and all these other big companies disappeared. Everyone would be so much better with overpriced mom and pop shops and a dearth of standards of quality, no ?

All he's saying is that other countries have tax rates well below the US's, and that Obama is trying to trap companies that try to move to a lower-tax rate domicile. It makes companies harder to diversify and discourages entrepreneurship.

I think we all enjoy bashing those either more successful or who hold more power than us - but until we actually experience what they go through and the decisions they have to make, it's really not right for us to make outlandish assumptions on topics we know nothing about.

I completely agree. There is also another component to that, because Murdoch is a conservative that makes it all that much more sickening. If it were a liberal with that much power doing the exact opposite, it'd be ok. It doesn't matter the label, left or right, conservative or democrat. Murdoch has buckets of cash, good for him, the Clinton's have cash up the butt, Bill can get $500,000 for A speech, most of the Hollywood ilk have money for the next 100 years, it doesn't bother me one bit, they earned it, they can do what they want, buy what they want, if any of you object, too bad. I too, make a lot of money and I refuse to apologize for working hard. No one gave me anything, it was earned and the same goes for Murdoch, whatever he does, whomever he buys out will NOT affect your daily lives. You guys will all be the same in the upcoming days, weeks, years that will follow. He's been EXTREMELY successful and why stop there? Keep going as far as you can. I'm a Capitalist in its purest form, it's the system that made the US what it is, although nowadays, it seems that many of the younger generation have become lazy and want to embrace bigger government, more taxes and a social nanny state, which is the downfall of the US as we are seeing right before our eyes. You can look at both Murdoch and his success and Obama and his socialist crap which has failed.

"The parasites we call government is pillaging everyone...."

I guess you missed the fact that the "pillaging" of 2008 financial crisis was caused entirely by private business? And that gov't's role ever since has been to fix the massive damage and wealth-destruction these private-sector scumbags have inflicted on us all?

And don't forget: corporate welfare is at an all-time high. If gov'ts withdrew their money train to the private sector tomorrow, nearly all the world's large private corporations would collapse. Whose the "parasite?

Oh please spare us the condescending neocon myth about superior economic knowledge. Some people here need reminding that it was the concepts of free unfettered markets and the BS trickle effect preached by the Murdochs of this world that led to the GFC. And who was it that bailed them out?

Obviously JT is a bit of a socialist hangout :)

SwissToni,

Smaller government means The People would be poorer, less safe and no doubt homeless?

1) People will be richer if the government takes less from them and squanders a good chunk of it in the process of squirting it around on corporate welfare and politician's pet projects

2) People won't be less safe if the government cuts the wasteful spending and keeps funding the police etc exactly as they do now.

3) I don't know who you are even talking about by "The People" if you think they will "no doubt" be homeless should government be smaller than it is... Useless paper pushers, is that who you mean by "The People"?

fxgai, politicians are what they are but they do need votes. In seeking those they do reign in the worst excesses of corporate liberalism. We've all seen the results of politicians failing to do that and having to borrow money to bail out businesses that were too big to fail. Having had his corporation taxes reduced do you really think Rupert Murdoch, or any other corporate oligarch wishes to keep more of their money so they can share it around in some philanthropic frenzy?

We've all seen the results of politicians failing to do that and having to borrow money to bail out businesses that were too big to fail.

I'd argue they didn't have to; they consciously opted to. Personally I'd have let them crash and burn and left it for the undertakers of capitalism to clean up.

Having had his corporation taxes reduced do you really think Rupert Murdoch, or any other corporate oligarch wishes to keep more of their money so they can share it around in some philanthropic frenzy?

Corporate tax and Rupert Murdoch's personal tax would seem to be different issues, but the point is not to cut corporate tax so that they will behave more philanthropically.

It's simply the case that profitable businesses are inherently beneficial to society before they even pay a single yen/cent of tax. Society benefits when businesses make money by providing products and services to people, and people also benefit when those businesses do well and increase the demand for people's labour, employing people.

Yet some people think this is not enough by itself and regard business as cash cows for Big Government politicians to charge their spending to. This adds a cost to society overall I believe.

You can argue all you like, but doing nothing is what allowed the financial crash in the first place. Allowing a complete financial meltdown would have destroyed many millions more livelihoods across the globe.

I know what your point is. However I don't agree that low corporate taxes necessarily create more business activity. I do believe that businesses and individuals owe the territories they are making money in a fair contribution. This becomes more important when business drives down salaries and offshores it profits. Working salaries have been pushed down to the point where activity and profits in the businesses producing goods and services to society at large have become restricted. There's no good in that.

You can argue all you like, but doing nothing is what allowed the financial crash in the first place. Allowing a complete financial meltdown would have destroyed many millions more livelihoods across the globe.

I don't think a "complete financial meltdown" would have occured, but the opposite of Big Government is Small Government, not No Government, make no mistake about that part.

However I don't agree that low corporate taxes necessarily create more business activity.

I agree, but I think it's a contributing factor, and no normal business is ever going to look to improve on it's operations by looking for jurisdictions where it would be forced to pay higher tax rates.

I do believe that businesses and individuals owe the territories they are making money in a fair contribution.

Businesses certainly can benefit from the environment that the territory provides it, but having businesses being inherently good for a society, I have an open mind about whether they should be expected to pay any tax at all, let alone have a strong view about what a "fair contribution" is.

I tend to think that it's not possible to objectively define "fair contribution", given that the different people might place different levels of value on the non-tax contributions that business make to society through demand for labour and supply of goods and services.

This becomes more important when business drives down salaries and offshores it profits.

That businesses do such things is a consequence of the problem, rather than the source of the problem. Lower corporate taxes and have government get out of the way, and I believe businesses would have less incenvtive to go down such a path.

The problem I think is that Big Government proponents like to think they can control everything including businesses by making more rules. But this only makes the problem worse, since jurisdictions are competing to attract businesses for the benefit of their socieities. I believe the solution is for jurisdictions to pursue Small Government, and fewer (but more effective) rules. However, Big Government proponents don't like the idea of not being able to control others, and thus oppose...

I think you're wrong. I would suggest most would call it reasonable regulation. The arbiter of what is reasonable has to be the ballot box. In the end if a business thinks it can make a profit in a regulated marketplace, high tax rates or not, they will just get on with it. Those that think there's too many rules usually have something to hide or simply don't care about contributing to society. In my opinion they're not welcome anyway.

"I don't think a "complete financial meltdown" would have occured"

Haha! Some people have short memories. 2008 was a contagion, wiping out wealth everywhere, from GM to Iceland banks to Greece, to the Nevada property market, to the airlines, etc., etc., etc..

The gov't's were forced to step in with money and stimulus, otherwise, the entire house of cards would have collapsed. Except possibly in Norway, Singapore, Canada, etc., where gov't's were already pro-active and fully engaged.

Iceland later learned its lesson by jailing the private-sector scumbags responsible. We did not. And we will eventually pay a horrific price for that.

SwissToni,

Well I do see higher taxes as a disincentive to do business, I know personally there's certain types of activity that I would be more likely to engage in should the tax rates be lower, and less likely to engage in should the tax rates be higher.

You may not think this way, but I do believe a lot of normal people do.

In my opinion they're not welcome anyway.

I believe you're ignoring the inherent benefits of business, and the complacent attitude is the type that see's once thriving places slowly slip down the gurgler to be replaced by better alternatives.

JeffLee,

GM doesn't mean much to me. Iceland banks? No. Greece? Wasn't it government blowing the budget that triggered their problems (and the Euro peg project). The Nevada property market? Perhaps to an American that might seem important but I admit that I never gave a hoot about that either. Airlines? I can't believe that even Hollywood would come up with a scenario where no one needs and wants to travel anymore.

The economic situation was indeed bad. But I don't see that capitalism wouldn't have rectified it had governments not opted to step in.

The gov't's were forced to step in with money and stimulus, otherwise, the entire house of cards would have collapsed.

Humour me! The government stopped a "house of cards" collapsing? Which "house of cards" was that? Is it a house of bricks and mortar now, or still a house of cards?

Interesting deflections all but not one positive statement. The do nothing and leave it to unfettered capitalism method has been tested and found wanting. If there are areas of business you're not interested in because you feel someone is looking over your shoulder, fear not, someone else is.

"Wasn't it government blowing the budget that triggered their problems (and the Euro peg project)."

The trigger for Greece was the 2008 financial meltdown. Or do you think the timing was pure coincidence? True, Greece was in bad condition (But not nearly as "bad" as japan in terms of fiscal debt), and using a badly conceived currency, but the sudden crisis situation was created by disastrous global state of credit caused by the financial crisis.

"GM doesn't mean much to me."

Of course not. If a real event contradicts your pet theory...just ignore it. The financial industry caused such huge wealth destruction among US consumers , that one of the first things they stopped buying was new cars. Bang goes the auto industry. That be one element of a contagion, my son.

"Humour me! The government stopped a "house of cards" collapsing? "

I suggest you read "8 Days" In thte New Yorker, about how the US govt held a series of emergency meetings to keep the financial system propped up and prevent the collapse of the house of cards the unregulated industry had created for itself (and us). NO, it's not funny.