Originally Posted by GTR
I also believe that a single company should not be held responsible for providing the entire R&D of the world, nor it's income either. That's something that should be shared among many.
Apple shouldn't be singled out but the reason they are is because they generate the most income. If they generate more income than the next 5 tech companies combined then they should pay more taxes than the next 5 combined.
Originally Posted by asdasd
companies are taxed where they are based not where they sell.
They are taxed on where they are tax resident. Apple is based in the US but their Irish subsidiary is tax resident nowhere.
Because the Irish subsidiaries are incorporated in Ireland, they aren't tax resident in the US but because they are managed and controlled outside of Ireland, they aren't tax resident in Ireland either.
Originally Posted by Entropys
The journo who wrote this, Chenoworth, has form. He is clearly of the school of thought that all your money belongs to the government and whatever it leaves you you should be grateful.
I agree with Kerry Packer. You should pay as little tax as possible as the government will never spend Other Peoples' Money as well as the Other People that earnt it.
In some ways the money does belong to the government as they make the currency but I don't see how 30% of profits turns into "all your money belongs to the government". They make assessments over typical family life and provide for those needs. They know that there will be an amount of people above retirement age and that amount multiplied by a minimum standard of income and housing is the income needed. They know that there will be an amount of children at a certain age and they need education and the families looking after them need support. They know what resources are required for the military, justice department, transport services, national attractions and so on. Take all that expense, work out the GDP and the needs are funded from a reasonable percentage of production.
Paying as little tax as possible doesn't take away what needs to be paid for. How are you going to support yourself once you retire? If you live for 30 years of retirement and have paid off your house and manage to get by on $10k per year (including medical bills), that's still $300k. If you don't plan to retire with that in the bank then that support comes from taxes on the working class. What if you lose your eyesight? Tim Cook made sure that you'll be able to use an iPhone but you won't be able to buy one because that support comes from taxes.
If people think taxes are too high then tackle the cause of them and not the effect of them. The cause is that there are too many old people, too many unemployed, too many kids and too many nutjobs wanting to kill you.
Good old Kerry, when he survived a heart attack he equipped all the ambulances in NSW with defibrillators.
Another one of those beautiful ironic examples that we find in life, where one individual's selfishness benefits the many.
If he'd paid taxes in the first place, maybe there would have been defibrillators in there already. That's why there is such a thing as a governing body that doesn't operate on its own self-interest. It's designed to work in the best interests of the entire population.
It's inefficient and costs too much as a result and it encourages entitlements but it's necessary and there's not a better option. People think there's a better option by making most things private but that's how it was in the past and it creates a class system that spans generations. It restricts opportunity to the offspring of parents who can afford it.
Originally Posted by ascii
I think those health care costs would be a lot lower if the sellers of health care goods and services knew they were selling to individuals and not the government.
You don't have to guess at it:
The US drug prices are the result of the supposed free market utopia. They aren't cheaper because they monopolise the supply.