or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple says $6B U.S. tax payout for 2012 equals '1 out of every 40 dollars' collected from corporations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple says $6B U.S. tax payout for 2012 equals '1 out of every 40 dollars' collected from... - Page 4

post #121 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Yeah, you're right; that sounds weird. lol.gif


Their share of our debt. That's better.


Damn, thought you solved the US debt problem right there! It's yours, China! ;-)

post #122 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Once again, it's easy enough to find facts rather than just guessing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
So China and Japan each held just about 10% of our total public debt-or about 20% of our foreign debt each.


Thanks for checking. You could have just taken my word for it. :)

post #123 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Since Congress controls the purse it would be more helpful for this analysis to examine who was in control of Congress during these times.

That is certainly reasonable - but if you choose that route, you need to stop blaming Obama for the current fiscal situation.

It's funny how the Right wants to have it both ways. They want to blame Obama for our current fiscal problems, but when you point out that Democratic administrations have increased spending much more slowly than Republican administrations (and other than the first year, spending is actually down under Obama), they say it's the Congress that's responsible for that.

So which is it?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #124 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That is certainly reasonable - but if you choose that route, you need to stop blaming Obama for the current fiscal situation.
It's funny how the Right wants to have it both ways. They want to blame Obama for our current fiscal problems, but when you point out that Democratic administrations have increased spending much more slowly than Republican administrations (and other than the first year, spending is actually down under Obama), they say it's the Congress that's responsible for that.
So which is it?

 

It is Congress. This isn't a point of opinion, it is a point of fact. Congress passes the budgets.

 

Granted, the President signs (and sometimes proposes) the (budget) bills, so there is shared responsibility. But to look at some data and look at who is president (and which party) without looking at how Congress is composed is disingenuous.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #125 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

It is Congress. This isn't a point of opinion, it is a point of fact. Congress passes the budgets.

 

Granted, the President signs (and sometimes proposes) the (budget) bills, so there is shared responsibility. But to look at some data and look at who is president (and which party) without looking at how Congress is composed is disingenuous.

 

In other words, he wants to be able to pick and choose who to blame at any specific time.

post #126 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

In other words, he wants to be able to pick and choose who to blame at any specific time.

 

Don't be a dick.

 

Who do you "pick and choose" and why?

 

The fact is the Congress passes the budgets. This is a fact.

 

The President also signs then. This is a fact.

 

The post implied the president was the sole party involved here. This is factually wrong.

 

But if you wish to ignore these fact, I understand. Because it probably makes the people you support look bad.

 

Of course, all of this is really a distraction. The fact is that both parties continually increase spending. Both parties are merely two branches of the same party. Pretending these two parties are substantially different from one another (in this way or most other ways) is an exercise in denial.


Edited by MJ1970 - 1/6/13 at 6:29pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #127 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It is Congress. This isn't a point of opinion, it is a point of fact. Congress passes the budgets.

Granted, the President signs (and sometimes proposes) the (budget) bills, so there is shared responsibility. But to look at some data and look at who is president (and which party) without looking at how Congress is composed is disingenuous.

No more disingenuous than the claims that try to blame the Democrats for excessive spending because Obama was in office when the Bush bills came due.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #128 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No more disingenuous than the claims that try to blame the Democrats for excessive spending because Obama was in office when the Bush bills came due.

 

Except that claim is disingenuous. Sure some of the spending is a result of this. But you conveniently ignore the $800B in additional spending that Obama's administration proposed immediately after entering office. That is not a "bill coming due." Obama doesn't get a pass here, however consistently and deftly he's tried to pass the buck for everything negative that's happened.

 

The reality here is that both parties are spenders. Neither of them has reduced spending. Neither. At least not in modern (the last 100 years) history. They are two factions of the same criminal gang.


Edited by MJ1970 - 1/6/13 at 7:25pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 157
A guy comes in, wrecks your house, leaves it a ruined mess. You sign the bills to fix it. Who is the spender?
post #130 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Except that claim is disingenuous. Sure some of the spending is a result of this. But you conveniently ignore the $800B in additional spending that Obama's administration proposed immediately after entering office. That is not a "bill coming due." Obama doesn't get a pass here, however consistently and deftly he's tried to pass the buck for everything negative that's happened.

The reality here is that both parties are spenders. Neither of them has reduced spending. Neither. At least not in modern (the last 100 years) history. They are two factions of the same criminal gang.

Why don't you explain where you got better data than Forbes?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Oh, wait. You don't believe in data. Your pronouncements are sufficient and everyone should simply accept everything you say. /s
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #131 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Except that claim is disingenuous. Sure some of the spending is a result of this. But you conveniently ignore the $800B in additional spending that Obama's administration proposed immediately after entering office.

 

You mean the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the ~$800B that kept us from sinking into a 2nd Great Depression.

 

Yeah, that pesky Obama, keeping us out of an economic depression, the nerve!. That $800B is exactly the same as all other spending. It's even worse! Who cares if the money kept the economy from completely imploding. Who cares if the recovery has been slow because it wasn't even enough. It's not the government's business to prevent economic disaster. They should have let the banks fail too!

 

Originally, I didn't think you could possibly be as utterly clueless as you seem. Now I realize I was wrong.

post #132 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Flat tax is not the solution. The Transaction Tax: 1% on every transaction has been mathematically shown to be the answer that NO CORPORATION, FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, etc., wants.

 

In 2011 nearly $900 Trillion in transactions happened in and within the US and all its business entities. 1% is $9 Trillion in tax revenues. It's been proposed as a replacement to Income Tax and Sales Tax by several Democrats in the US House of Representatives. The GOP has blocked it at after turn.

 

It's a purely progressive tax. You spend $6 Billion, take 1% of that off the transaction. You spend $20 million on a yacht, take 1% off that transaction. You fill your tank for fuel, take 1% of that transaction.

 

No loop holes, not special favors. Just straight up tax on every transaction.

 

They will never do it. It's the most balanced and fair tax possible. It cuts the Tax Code down to size [nothing]. It restructures Tax Revenue laws at the State and Federal Government down to a simple and concise standard, while covering more than the nation's necessary expenses.

 

Corporations have been burying the idea for decades, in lobbying. It targets actual transactions, not pre/post tax revenues and incomes.

 

1. How is this different than sales taxes we already have?

 

2. How is this tax progressive? The poor and middle class spend a higher percentage of their income (just to live), so why wouldn't they end up paying an effectively higher tax rate? (Well, because I don't see how this is different than a sales tax.)

post #133 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

1. How is this different than sales taxes we already have?

2. How is this tax progressive? The poor and middle class spend a higher percentage of their income (just to live), so why wouldn't they end up paying an effectively higher tax rate? (Well, because I don't see how this is different than a sales tax.)

The answer to both of your questions is the same. A transaction tax covers things that a sales tax does not cover - and many of those things are things that are practiced by the upper class far more than the lower and middle class.

For example, someone buys $1 M in stock or bonds. There is no sales tax on that transaction, but there would be a transaction tax. Or someone transfers $1 M to an overseas bank account. No sales tax, but transaction tax would apply.

Whether it's a good idea or not comes down to a lot of details. It would certainly change the way people do business since transactions are essentially free today, but would not be under this scenario. But it does overcome the serious problem of a sales tax. A sales tax is regressive. A transaction tax would be less so.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #134 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You mean the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the ~$800B that kept us from sinking into a 2nd Great Depression.

 

Oh, I see, now you're choosing to beg the question. 1hmm.gif


Edited by MJ1970 - 1/7/13 at 6:41am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #135 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Why don't you explain where you got better data than Forbes?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Oh, wait. You don't believe in data. Your pronouncements are sufficient and everyone should simply accept everything you say. /s

 

No, I like data just fine. But we need to be careful what data we use and how we use it, because it can be used to mislead. You know the whole lies, damn lies and statistics thing.

 

Sadly your link doesn't do anything to refute what I said.

 

As for that analysis that Obama is not a big spender, here is an alternative analysis of the spending.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #136 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The answer to both of your questions is the same. A transaction tax covers things that a sales tax does not cover - and many of those things are things that are practiced by the upper class far more than the lower and middle class.
For example, someone buys $1 M in stock or bonds. There is no sales tax on that transaction, but there would be a transaction tax. Or someone transfers $1 M to an overseas bank account. No sales tax, but transaction tax would apply.
Whether it's a good idea or not comes down to a lot of details. It would certainly change the way people do business since transactions are essentially free today, but would not be under this scenario. But it does overcome the serious problem of a sales tax. A sales tax is regressive. A transaction tax would be less so.

 

So, who pays the tax? The buyer, the seller, both? It would seem like it would generate a lot of revenue from equity and bond transactions, particularly if both sides pay. And, at first glance, it looks like it might have a positive effect on programmed trading, by making it more costly. Has anyone done an analysis of possible side-effects, since it does seem a certainty that it would affect behavior? (And, yes, with any tax plan, the devil is always in the details.)

 

For instance, assuming it's all transactions, if you were to buy a house with a mortgage, there would be a 1% tax on the home purchase, a 1% tax on the mortgage, possibly another 2% for the other side (sale, mortgage payoff), 1% on the commission, and 1% on a number of other things like appraisals and inspections. Then 1% on every mortgage payment and any home improvements, and so on...

post #137 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So, who pays the tax? The buyer, the seller, both?

 

Ultimately the buyer pays all the taxes. This may be hard to detect because of who is actually cutting the check and what balance sheets are debited and credited, but ultimately it is the consumer of products and services that pays all the taxes. Renters pay the property taxes. Customers of Apple pay Apple's taxes. When you go to a restaurant or a clothing store and buy something...you are paying the property, income and sales taxes. Etc.

 

Ultimately all taxes trickle down to the consumer.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #138 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Ultimately the buyer pays all the taxes. This may be hard to detect because of who is actually cutting the check and what balance sheets are debited and credited, but ultimately it is the consumer of products and services that pays all the taxes. Renters pay the property taxes. Customers of Apple pay Apple's taxes. When you go to a restaurant or a clothing store and buy something...you are paying the property, income and sales taxes. Etc.

 

Ultimately all taxes trickle down to the consumer.

 

That wasn't the question, nor does your "answer" address it.

post #139 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Oh, I see, now you're choosing to beg the question. 1hmm.gif

 

Actually, it's called, not denying facts.

post #140 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Actually, it's called, not denying facts.

 

No, it's called assuming the point (a.k.a. begging the question.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #141 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

That wasn't the question, nor does your "answer" address it.

 

Sorry that you're unable to see that my answer is the answer to the question. I know that the tax thieves (and their useful idiots) don't like to admit this reality (that all taxes are born by the people, by the consumers) but it is an ugly reality of what you advocate.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #142 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

No, it's called assuming the point (a.k.a. begging the question.)

 

Unfortunately for you, you won't be able to find a reputable economist who will support your position.

post #143 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Sorry that you're unable to see that my answer is the answer to the question. I know that the tax thieves (and their useful idiots) don't like to admit this reality (that all taxes are born by the people, by the consumers) but it is an ugly reality of what you advocate.

 

a) I didn't advocate a transaction tax, I was asking questions about it, you know, trying to learn something. You might consider doing it yourself sometime. I know you aren't in the habit, but it's really not that hard.

 

b) Your "answer", not only doesn't address the question, it provides zero useful information in regard to it. Again, try to learn something. Ignorance isn't something to wear like a badge of honor, despite the Tea Party's belief that ignorance is bliss. 

post #144 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Unfortunately for you, you won't be able to find a reputable economist who will support your position.

 

So now you're moving the goal posts?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #145 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

a) I didn't advocate a transaction tax,

 

I didn't claim you did.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

you know, trying to learn something. You might consider doing it yourself sometime. I know you aren't in the habit, but it's really not that hard.

 

Still insist on being a dick huh?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

b) Your "answer", not only doesn't address the question, it provides zero useful information in regard to it.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Again, try to learn something. Ignorance isn't something to wear like a badge of honor, despite the Tea Party's belief that ignorance is bliss. 

 

I guess the answer is yes. BTW, the **** does the Tea Party have to do with this?! Oh...I know...you'er arguing against the caricature of me that you've created in your head.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #146 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

BTW, the **** does the Tea Party have to do with this?! Oh...I know...you'er arguing against the caricature of me that you've created in your head.

 

It doesn't matter if you are a member or not, you share the same ignorantly simplistic and misguided outlook. So, it's entirely appropriate to paint you with the same brush if you walk like Tea Partier and quack like a Tea Partier. When it comes to caricature of you, you've already done the self portrait.

post #147 of 157

I'm having some serious issues with these numbers.

 

Either Apple is exaggerating to make much of that $6bn number, or else something is seriously wrong with our tax system (that's probably true regardless, but specifically regarding corporate taxes). 

 

Here's what's troubling me:

 

If Apple's $6bn is 1/40 of all corporate taxes paid, then the total of all corporate taxes paid was $240bn.

 

Our GDP is about $14 TRILLION. $240bn is a bit less than 2% of that.

 

Corporations, therefore, contributed a bit less than 2% of GDP to the Federal Budget. The Federal Budget typically needs to bring in about 18% of GDP to remain a desirable and functional government (and that % is normal, it isn't indicative of 'overspending' at that level). With our current revenue shortfalls due to the weak economy, we're collecting only 14% of GDP as tax. Thus our wild deficits.

 

If corporations are paying only 2% of GDP in tax, then they are only contributing 10% ~ 12% of all taxes. But what is the total corporate contribution to GDP? An effective corporate tax rate of 2% of GDP is surely unsustainable. If Corporations are generating a higher percentage of GDP they must pay taxes accordingly, and even a but more, since our taxpayer dollars are spent to sustain the roads and other infrastructure they use and enjoy to do their commerce... 

 

Whatever the answers to these questions, if I hear another GOP politico saying Corporations (and their rich human parents) are over-taxed, I'm going to ask this question again… because it's clear that they are paying too little, regardless... 

post #148 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It doesn't matter if you are a member or not, you share the same ignorantly simplistic and misguided outlook. So, it's entirely appropriate to paint you with the same brush if you walk like Tea Partier and quack like a Tea Partier. When it comes to caricature of you, you've already done the self portrait.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #149 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No, I like data just fine. But we need to be careful what data we use and how we use it, because it can be used to mislead. You know the whole lies, damn lies and statistics thing.

Sadly your link doesn't do anything to refute what I said.

As for that analysis that Obama is not a big spender, here is an alternative analysis of the spending.

The funny thing is that even your own link says that Obama's spending has been among the lowest of all recent presidents (with Clinton also very far below average). So when you finally get around to presenting facts, they agree with me.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #150 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The funny thing is that even your own link says that Obama's spending has been among the lowest of all recent presidents (with Clinton also very far below average). So when you finally get around to presenting facts, they agree with me.

 

Actually, if you look back, my point was that both parties are big spenders. Which, I thought, was what you were responding to and attempting to refute. I disagree that the data refutes this in any way at all. I also disagree that the links I presented conclusively suggest Obama is a more conservative spender. It depends on what numbers you use.


Edited by MJ1970 - 1/7/13 at 9:23am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #151 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbit View Post

Why do companies only pay 2.5% tax when we pay 8, 10, 13, etc? I wish I only paid 2.5%
They paid 2.5% of all the taxes paid by corporations, no a 2.5% tax... There is a big difference.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #152 of 157

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


So profit made outside the US through a subsidiary that doesn't exist in the US you still want to have all taxed as if the sale and money were all in the US? And you think this sounds reasonable?

 

Absolutely. That "foreign" subsidiary was created by, wholly controlled by, receives support by, and benefits, an American company.

The profits from the foreign subsidiary are included in who's quarterly reports which are filed where?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


So Apple is obeying the law and yet you think it's not fair for Apple (haven't even mentioned Google and the double Irish agreement) is paying only 2.5% of all corporate taxes even though all the companies in the US Apple is much less than 1/40th? Is that right?
 

Legal or illegal is irrelevant. The tax law is screwed up and it needs to be fixed.

If other companies are using the loophole, then they are just as slimy as Apple.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Where are your numbers? Where have you taken into account all of Apple's profits for the year and said they they need to pay taxes in every country they do business as well as this mobster like payment you want them to pay extra to the US? Where is your analysis on how many companies will simply move their HQ out of the US to avoid this draconian law you wish to establish? Have you considered how this would negatively affect our country?

 

Who needs numbers? They currently pay near $0, it obviously needs to be more than that.

Again, the profits from the foreign subsidiary are included in who's quarterly reports which are filed where?

We only need to tax overseas profits at the same rates as if the profit was made here, minus what they already paid to the hosting country.

Companies threatening to move is just posturing. Their employees will not follow them. Political stability, standard of living, abundance of talent, the US is still the best place to have a business.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Where has Warren Buffet said that profit made outside the US through a subsidiary that doesn't exist in the US should still be taxed as if the sale and money were all in the US.
 

 

He said the rich needs to pay more taxes and he's disgusted by wealthy people and corporations using tax havens.

 

"...I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours.

 

Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of “reforming” the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like “carried interest” that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it’s sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/buffett-a-minimum-tax-for-the-wealthy.html?_r=0

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


No, they haven't done that. There are parts that are done in the US, like automated manufacturing and smaller-scale assembly, but you cannot get any Apple Mac or iDevice completely designed and made in the US without the cost being astronomical, even if it's possible, which it might not be because there are licensing that may require paying a company outside the US which would therefore be putting some of the money back in those nasty foreigner's pockets. Then you have equipment to make the products which very likely aren't made in the US.
 

 

Remember this on Dec 2,2012?  Some new iMacs marked as being 'Assembled in USA'.  You were the 4th person to reply to that thread.

Or this on Dec 6th?  Apple will invest $100M to produce one line of Macs in the US in 2013.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


We are a worldwide economy.
 

 

Um, I know that. That's why I'm advocating the removal of loopholes for US companies that have foreign subsidiaries.

Long time ago, our nation's economy stopped at our borders. Today, our economy is intertwined with nations around the world. Our tax laws need to reflect this change.

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply
post #153 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Once again, it's easy enough to find facts rather than just guessing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
So China and Japan each held just about 10% of our total public debt-or about 20% of our foreign debt each.

Depends on how you count. The american-held part of the american debt actually

1- relies on american financial health (obvious, dead companies/institutions/broke loners aren't likely to claim a bond), which makes things already shaky, but let's ignore this detail as it's anecdotic compared to 2-

2- has been argued by some economist to rely on an accounting trick for part(1/3 belongs to Federal agencies, which is the US government), and 1/6 belongs to either the Federal reserve (which can be considered "Government", whatever its actual "legal" status, given its role and prerogatives -- just imagine if it was Russia or England or Saudi Arabia... suddenly, its obviously "Government") or "State or local Government"... which is "Government" all right.

 

So very roughly half (let's not go into 1457/3167 style fractions...) of the american debt is owned by "Government", and the part purely belonging to Federal Reserve or Federal agencies is _massive_.

 

This casts a very different eye on the "10%" owned by China and Japan.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #154 of 157
Russell, you need to understand why we have tax treaties to begin with. Not only do American countries and citizens pay taxes abroad when profit or income is made abroad, foreign countries and citizens also pay US tax when they make profit or income in the US. Without such a system in place, trade would be absolutely stifled.
post #155 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It amazes me how so many people are so dense that they can't comprehend what Obama was saying - even after the press showed the ENTIRE clip (not just the portion that Fox News took out of context.
What Obama clearly said was that companies rely on roads. Rail. Schools. Police protection. Banking infrastructure. And so on. And the multimillionaire who owns a company didn't build all of those things - society did.
He never said (or even implied) that someone didn't build the business they own.
(Not to mention, of course, that we'll be something like 130 years old on the date you're claiming he 'made' the statement).

 

To be fair, all of the Liberal media outlets (I guess you could say all news outlets except Fox News) sure didn't mind taking Romney's "47%" clip out of context by playing 20 seconds of a 2 minute conversation.  If Romney can be crucified by that, then Obama is fair game.

 

When will everyone wake up and see it is not about Republicans versus Democrats, or Rich versus Poor, or Black versus White, or Gay versus Straight?  It is about the American people versus the greedy, corrupt politicians who do everything to serve themselves and their contributors, but do not serve the American people.  They constantly get us fighting each other to conceal their underhanded back-room dealings.  This election time it was the Rich versus Poor class warfare.  Next election it will be something similar.  Our forefathers saw serving in Congress as a civic duty, a job they did because they felt they had to.  Those guys had farms to run and other businesses, which they wanted to get back to, not serve in Congress forever.  Once politics became a career in this country instead of a duty, that view changed and the now sole goal of today's politician is to remain in power.  I am over-generalizing to make a point, but the message should be clear.  Quit fighting each other.

post #156 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

Once politics became a career in this country instead of a duty, that view changed and the now sole goal of today's politician is to remain in power.  I am over-generalizing to make a point, but the message should be clear.

 

Which is why a two-consecutive term limit for Congressmen and Senators would be helpful for America.

Not that the career politicians will ever let it happen.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #157 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

Which is why a two-consecutive term limit for Congressmen and Senators would be helpful for America.

Not that the career politicians will ever let it happen.

 

Term limits are a dumb idea, The problems in this country are not related to multiple term Congressmen. The problems are related to corporate and private wealth corrupting the democratic process. Term limits would just make that problem worse.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Apple says $6B U.S. tax payout for 2012 equals '1 out of every 40 dollars' collected from corporations