or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › European Union announces tax evasion investigations of Apple, Fiat & Starbucks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

European Union announces tax evasion investigations of Apple, Fiat & Starbucks - Page 3

post #81 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Interesting fact:

World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.

How?

post #82 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

How?

Seek and ye shall find...

1wink.gif
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #83 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Contrary to free market principles by stating the right to tax income earned outside the United States in business transactions having nothing to do with the United States.
The current international corporation tax standard says exactly this, so is already "contrary to free market principles" (as if that matters to anyone except right wing nuts). The only difference I'm suggesting is making reporting and repatriation mandatory on a group level. If the company is headquartered in the US, then that's where the corporation tax is paid, no matter where the profit was earned. Sorry if that offends your principles.

It might be unrealistic given the current US Congress, but given the current deadlock over there it seems like anything and everything is unrealistic, so that's hardly an insightful observation.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #84 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


It is my understanding that any foreign corporation tax paid is written off the US repatriation tax bill as a credit. So there is no double taxation. A corporation should never pay more than the 35%.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


The current international corporation tax standard says exactly this, so is already "contrary to free market principles" (as if that matters to anyone except right wing nuts). The only difference I'm suggesting is making reporting and repatriation mandatory on a group level. If the company is headquartered in the US, then that's where the corporation tax is paid, no matter where the profit was earned. Sorry if that offends your principles.

It might be unrealistic given the current US Congress, but given the current deadlock over there it seems like anything and everything is unrealistic, so that's hardly an insightful observation.

 

A lot of what you are saying makes sense. However, as much as it would be admirable and lovely if US-headquartered companies such as Apple supported the US as much as possible by bringing all their foreign-earned cash reserves back, it would also be nice if the US govt. supported them in turn. Maybe balance out getting Apple and others to repatriate all their foreign earnings by levying some kind of tariff against foreign competitors whose own govts are particularly lax and nationalistic in some areas to put it mildly (say, Samsung). Rather, the likes of Samsung seem to get tremendous support, incentives and favor from officials and courts in the US as well as at home.

 

One begins to wonder if lobbying (Samsung's) and lack of lobbying (Apple's) should really have the effect they seem to have. Perhaps Apple is hoping the US govt will redress some kind of perceived imbalance/bias and come up with a repatriation deal of its own, without Apple having to lobby (essentially bribe someone) for it.

post #85 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post
 

 

A lot of what you are saying makes sense. However, as much as it would be admirable and lovely if US-headquartered companies such as Apple supported the US as much as possible by bringing all their foreign-earned cash reserves back, it would also be nice if the US govt. supported them in turn. Maybe balance out getting Apple and others to repatriate all their foreign earnings by levying some kind of tariff against foreign competitors whose own govts are particularly lax and nationalistic in some areas to put it mildly (say, Samsung).

 

Sure, I've got no problem with that, I think free trade has a pretty heavy negative side that has been largely brushed under the carpet over the past few decades.

 

Personally I'd rather any levy be connected to something more honourable than just preventing competition - i.e. linking it to conditions for workers, health and safety records, universal education, universal availability of legal representation, anti-corruption measures, human rights etc, which would pressure the developing world, especially BRIC, to improve their standards and  level the playing field; but that's a different matter.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #86 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post


Seek and ye shall find...

1wink.gif

So magically, world hunger will simply end if the U.S. spends 5% less on defense?

:???:

post #87 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

So magically, world hunger will simply end if the U.S. spends 5% less on defense?
1confused.gif

Why are being so obtuse? There is no magic and there certainly isn't some direct correlation being a reduction of a defense budget and food filling bellies out of thin air. The calculation is one of many that simply takes the average cost of food for all starving people throughout the year and adds it up. Then that was measured against the world's largest defense budget. Not exactly rocket science. It's o different when someone dividies the number of people in the world or a country against some multi-billionaire to see how much everyone would receive if that value was distributed. It's a straightforward calculation, not one to get upset over.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #88 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Why are being so obtuse? 

Seriously, I don't get it.

Perhaps if this 5% was spent on food/providing for these starving people instead of defense it would make good sized dent but simply reducing the budget?

post #89 of 108

It was mainly a quote, from a source I consider reliable - the Food and Agriculture Organisation's Director-General Jacques Diouf of the United Nations - who has been involved in this type of work for over thirty years, that I provided to question why we have international governments focussing on the legitimate income of companies like Apple when they themselves are quite willing to allow hundreds of people to die of starvation every hour.

 

It was a statement about the current state of governments, nothing more.

 

The responses from some in this forum have been both interesting and slightly disgusting.

Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #90 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Perhaps if this 5% was spent on food/providing for these starving people instead of defense...

That's the entire implication of the statement.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #91 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


The current international corporation tax standard says exactly this, so is already "contrary to free market principles" (as if that matters to anyone except right wing nuts). The only difference I'm suggesting is making reporting and repatriation mandatory on a group level. If the company is headquartered in the US, then that's where the corporation tax is paid, no matter where the profit was earned. Sorry if that offends your principles.

It might be unrealistic given the current US Congress, but given the current deadlock over there it seems like anything and everything is unrealistic, so that's hardly an insightful observation.

 

First, you can shove the attitude.  I've been posting here since you were sucking on your thumb, watching Animaniacs.   Now, to the issue:  

 

Quote:
The current international corporation tax standard says exactly this, so is already "contrary to free market principles" (as if that matters to anyone except right wing nuts). 

 

I don't think you understand what "free market principles" means.  You seem to be implying that it's some absolutist position or complete laissez faire capitalism embraced by who you describe as "right wing nuts."   I am saying that it is contrary to free market principles to "demand" all of the things you support.  

 

Quote:
The only difference I'm suggesting is making reporting and repatriation mandatory on a group level. If the company is headquartered in the US, then that's where the corporation tax is paid, no matter where the profit was earned. Sorry if that offends your principles.

 

Sounds great, but you haven't thought it through.  Does Apple still have to pay corporate taxes in all the countries in which it does business and in the United States?  Why are they doubly taxed?  Do they pay corporate taxes on sales and activity in say, Japan?   Or, would you wave your magic wand and force every nation to agree to the same plan?  Oh, and good luck with forced repatriation.  I suspect Apple and every other international corporation has a giant middle finger they'd like to show you and your government lawyers.  

 

Quote:
It might be unrealistic given the current US Congress, but given the current deadlock over there it seems like anything and everything is unrealistic, so that's hardly an insightful observation.

 

Again with the attitude. <sigh> What's funny is that while you condescend, you complete misunderstand my meaning.  I am not talking about the current deadlock in Congress.  I am talking about getting ANY Congress to do such a thing.  A move like you are suggesting is a massive, unprecedented change to tax law that will have far reaching implications on revenue to the government, regulation and enforcement, the corporations' business interests, and the American economy.   Moreover, our political system is pretty much run by corporations at this point anyway.  No way you get Congress to dismantle their little crony capitalist club.  Ever.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #92 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

 

First, you can shove the attitude.  I've been posting here since you were sucking on your thumb, watching Animaniacs.  

 

If you want to discourage attiutude and engender respect, then responding with your own attitude and disrespect isn't the best way to go about it.  FYI, I was 20 in 2001, and I ditched the thumb sucking and Animaniacs when I was 19, so you are incorrect.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

I don't think you understand what "free market principles" means.  You seem to be implying that it's some absolutist position or complete laissez faire capitalism embraced by who you describe as "right wing nuts."   I am saying that it is contrary to free market principles to "demand" all of the things you support.  

So?  I honestly could not care less about free market principles when it comes to fair taxation.  Why would I?

 

And I still have no idea what you're getting at anyway, what "principle" do you even have in mind?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

Sounds great, but you haven't thought it through.  Does Apple still have to pay corporate taxes in all the countries in which it does business and in the United States?  Why are they doubly taxed?  Do they pay corporate taxes on sales and activity in say, Japan?   Or, would you wave your magic wand and force every nation to agree to the same plan?  Oh, and good luck with forced repatriation.  I suspect Apple and every other international corporation has a giant middle finger they'd like to show you and your government lawyers.  

You claim I haven't thought it through before even asking the questions.  Bad form.

 

  1. I am talking about the law in one country, the US, not the laws of other countries.  Other countries set their own tax laws.
  2. They needn't be doubly taxed.  The current system of allowing companies to write off tax already paid to foreign tax authorities could continue to exist.
  3. If Japan wants them to, yes.
  4. You seem to have a fixation on magic wands.  No, I wouldn't force other nations to do anything, but if the system works then maybe they'd adopt it too.
  5. It's not really forced repatriation, because "repatriation" is just an abstract - most of Apple's foreign cash is held in US banks, and the corporation tax is already owed, it's just "deferred" until a symbolic transfer has taken place.  The change I'm talking about is just about reporting profits in a different way, and paying tax accordingly on that reporting, without the notion of repatriation or deferral.  And that giant middle finger won't win them any favours at all.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

Again with the attitude. <sigh> What's funny is that while you condescend, you complete misunderstand my meaning.  I am not talking about the current deadlock in Congress.  I am talking about getting ANY Congress to do such a thing.  A move like you are suggesting is a massive, unprecedented change to tax law that will have far reaching implications on revenue to the government, regulation and enforcement, the corporations' business interests, and the American economy.   Moreover, our political system is pretty much run by corporations at this point anyway.  No way you get Congress to dismantle their little crony capitalist club.  Ever.  

 

Tbh I'd rather see the changes I'm talking about happen in the UK, where it seems such changes aren't beyond reason; it's only because the subject is Apple that I'm talking about the US at all.  Do what you want with your own tax code, or do nothing, it's your revenue.

 

In any case, a bit of wishful thinking doesn't have to pay lip service to political realism.  Many things that at one time seemed politically impossible ended up happening, so I don't accept the premise.


Edited by Crowley - 6/13/14 at 9:05am

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #93 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

 

If you want to discourage attiutude and engender respect, then responding with your own attitude and disrespect isn't the best way to go about it.  FYI, I was 20 in 2001, and I ditched the thumb sucking and Animaniacs when I was 19, so you are incorrect.

 
I don't care about engendering respect.  I was pretty much just telling you to shove it.  :)  
 
Quote:
So?  I honestly could not care less about free market principles when it comes to fair taxation.  Why would I?

 

Wow.  Just, wow.  You should run for Congress.  You think an awful lot like many of them.  

 

Quote:
And I still have no idea what you're getting at anyway, what "principle" do you even have in mind?

 

How about the notion of not "demanding" and forcing corporations to do what you want them to do?  How about creating and maintaining a business climate that encourages the flow of capital resources in the desired direction?  That doesn't even occur to you, because you're a Statist.  

 
Quote:
You claim I haven't thought it through before even asking the questions.  Bad form.

 

I don't believe you have.  And you can stick your opinion on bad form where you put the previous condescension.  

 

 
I am talking about the law in one country, the US, not the laws of other countries.  Other countries set their own tax laws.

 

Yes....

 

They needn't be doubly taxed.  The current system of allowing companies to write off tax already paid to foreign tax authorities could continue to exist.

 

OK.   

 

Quote:
If Japan wants them to, yes.

 

But what you are then pushing for is additional U.S. taxation.  That is the problem. 

 

Quote:
You seem to have a fixation on magic wands.  No, I wouldn't force other nations to do anything, but if the system works then maybe they'd adopt it too.

 

A magic wand would be awesome, so you're right I have a fixation with them.    What do you mean "if the the system works?"  Works for whom?  The problem is you're only looking at this from the perspective of government.  You seek to make Apple and others pay "their fair share."   You're just another Statist who believes taxation should be used to achieve social and economic ends.  I reject that philosophy wholeheartedly.  Taxation should be used as a method of funding essential government functions, and nothing else.  We can debate the definition of "essential," and we do every day.  But it's hard to find common ground with a group or person who believes the purpose of taxation is to increase State power to "fix" various problems.  

 

Quote:
It's not really forced repatriation, because "repatriation" is just an abstract - most of Apple's foreign cash is held in US banks, and the corporation tax is already owed, it's just "deferred" until a symbolic transfer has taken place.  The change I'm talking about is just about reporting profits in a different way, and paying tax accordingly on that reporting, without the notion of repatriation or deferral.

 

Wrong.  The tax would only be owed if the so-called "symbolic" transfer took place.  It's not deferred in any sense of the word.  Your problem is that you honestly believe this money is "owed" to the U.S. government.  You think it's rightfully theirs, and Apple is just using legal tricks to keep it to themselves.  In reality, the money is and has always been Apple's, just as the money we earn as private citizens is ours.  We don't owe any more than the law dictates we do.  You act as if there is some perfect, moral level of taxation that Apple has been skirting.  It's OK.  I've known many Statists who think the same way.  

 

Quote:
 And that giant middle finger won't win them any favours at all.
 
I really don't think they care.  No large corporation cares.  They will do what they always do...find the path of least resistance.  That is the nature of business.  Remember, corporations don't pay taxes.  People do.  They will find the most profitable way of doing business and will pass as many costs on to the consumer as possible.  
 
Quote:

I'd rather see the changes I'm talking about happen in the UK, where it seems such changes aren't beyond reason; it's only because the subject is Apple that I'm talking about the US at all.  Do what you want with your own tax code, or do nothing, it's your revenue.

 

In any case, a bit of wishful thinking doesn't have to pay lip service to political realism.  Many things that at one time seemed politically impossible ended up happening, so I don't accept the premise.

 

Your motivation for wanting the change you propose is what I find objectionable.  Ditto on your ultimate goals.  I want to see corporate tax policies that make sense and encourage economic development.  The U.S. tax code is byzantine in complexity, unfair, and ineffective.  We could both encourage investment/development and get more revenue if we simplified the code and made it possible to comply with---without an army of attorneys.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 108

You seen to have put a lot of goals and motivations into my mouth that I haven't talked about or even alluded to.  If that, and flinging around Statist as an insult and debate stifler, are going to be your tactics then we're not going to get anywhere.

 

 

For the record...

Quote:
 Taxation should be used as a method of funding essential government functions, and nothing else. 

I don't disagree.

 

We might have a bit of a debate about what an essential government function is, but in terms of those words I've quoted, I agree.  However, I would also say that taxation should be fairly proportioned across society, and the system should eliminate/minimise escape routes (your "paths of least resistance").

 

Also, regarding your free market principle, corporations don't want to pay tax period, yet they have to.  I don't know why you think what I'm talking about is such a monumental philiosphical difference from what the US does  right now.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #95 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

You seen to have put a lot of goals and motivations into my mouth that I haven't talked about or even alluded to.  If that, and flinging around Statist as an insult and debate stifler, are going to be your tactics then we're not going to get anywhere.

 

For the record...

I don't disagree.

yet you are happy to pay (and even seem feel you are obligated to pay) whatever they tell you to pay, without question... 

post #96 of 108

What on earth makes you think I don't question my government?

 

Why do people here keep assuming they know things about me way beyond the scope of the conversation?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #97 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

What on earth makes you think I don't question my government?

Why do people here keep assuming they know things about me way beyond the scope of the conversation?

What are these questions you've asked? And could you please include a pic of yourself in a powdered wig?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #98 of 108
The company that I'm working for right now actually makes judges wigs, so I probably could, if I were so inclined.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #99 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

You seen to have put a lot of goals and motivations into my mouth that I haven't talked about or even alluded to.  If that, and flinging around Statist as an insult and debate stifler, are going to be your tactics then we're not going to get anywhere.

 

I'm just going by what I read.  You seem to use words like "demand" a lot, and have at least implied that the reason we should change these laws is that Apple et al are not paying "enough."  

 

Quote:

For the record...

I don't disagree.

 

We might have a bit of a debate about what an essential government function is, but in terms of those words I've quoted, I agree.  

 

If you say so.  Do you mean to tell me you don't think taxation should be used to correct wealth inequality and unfairness?  Come on now, I know you want to tell me.  It will feel good to get it off your chest!


 

Quote:

However, I would also say that taxation should be fairly proportioned across society, and the system should eliminate/minimise escape routes (your "paths of least resistance").

 

 

OK.  Let me ask then....are you suggesting the wealthy don't pay enough now?  

 

Quote:
Also, regarding your free market principle, corporations don't want to pay tax period, yet they have to.  I don't know why you think what I'm talking about is such a monumental philiosphical difference from what the US does  right now.

 

I don't think you're seeing the point.  I'm saying that no matter what the corporate tax rate, corporations don't end up paying taxes.  People do.  Corporations will simply pass costs on the the end consumer.  Or, they will reduce activity (e.g. production hiring, etc.) to avoid paying.  By nature, their very last option is to cut a check to the government.  That's why--if you truly want to minimize avoidance and loopholes as you claim--you'd support a vastly reduced corporate tax burden and much simply code.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #100 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

I'm just going by what I read.  You seem to use words like "demand" a lot, and have at least implied that the reason we should change these laws is that Apple et al are not paying "enough."  
Are you suggesting they are?  Effective corporation tax rate on non-US profits of <10%, while local companies in your area are stuck at ~35% ?

Don't you think that kind of imbalance is fuelling an anti-competitive environment?

I don't think I used the word demand a lot at all, twice by my count in the same sentence back on page 1, and I was using it as a synonym for legislate, with the implication that it is needed to enforce a principle.  You used it more in your cute little "demand" quotations back at me to casually imply I was some kind of totalitarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 
If you say so.  Do you mean to tell me you don't think taxation should be used to correct wealth inequality and unfairness?  Come on now, I know you want to tell me.  It will feel good to get it off your chest!

Not especially.  I think tax should be collected fairly, and that revenue should be applied to education and public services that provide a measure of equal opportunity, but that's hardly the same as "correct wealth inequality and unfairness".

Why are you making this all about me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OK.  Let me ask then....are you suggesting the wealthy don't pay enough now?  

I don't know about the US, but in the UK the effective tax rate on the wealthiest 10% is less than that on the poorest 10%.  I suspect the US is probably similar since we share a lot of economic blood.  So yes, in those terms I think the wealthy don't pay enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 
I don't think you're seeing the point.  I'm saying that no matter what the corporate tax rate, corporations don't end up paying taxes.  People do.  Corporations will simply pass costs on the the end consumer.  Or, they will reduce activity (e.g. production hiring, etc.) to avoid paying.  By nature, their very last option is to cut a check to the government.  That's why--if you truly want to minimize avoidance and loopholes as you claim--you'd support a vastly reduced corporate tax burden and much simply code.  

I don't know about "vastly", but I'm certainly not against reducing corporation tax and simplifying the code.  I never said anything like that.  I'm against a one-off tax holiday as I think that's a stupid move, and I'm for effective collection of tax and a system that doesn't allow such blatant escape routes for massively wealthy multinational corporations and individuals.


Again, you've ascribed me a position that I've made no mention of.  Stop it.
Edited by Crowley - 6/16/14 at 11:44am

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #101 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Are you suggesting they are?  Effective corporation tax rate on non-US profits of <10%, while local companies in your area are stuck at ~35% ?   
 
Don't you think that kind of imbalance is fuelling an anti-competitive environment?

 

No corporation is actually paying 35%, and I think you know that.  Ironically--and this is what you can't seem to understand--if we'd have a flat tax rate of less than 10%, you'd see more revenue and less avoidance.  If you make the rate low enough, Apple et al would have no incentive to use international tax laws to play hide-and-go-seek with their money.  




 

Quote:
I don't think I used the word demand a lot at all, twice by my count in the same sentence back on page 1, and I was using it as a synonym for legislate, with the implication that it is needed to enforce a principle.  You used it more in your cute little "demand" quotations back at me to casually imply I was some kind of totalitarian.

 

 

At no time did I call you a totalitarian.  I said you were a Statist.  To be frank, I still think you are....though perhaps not as much so as I originally gleaned.  It's OK..some of our much more libertarian members have called me a Statist.  

 

Quote:
Not especially.  I think tax should be collected fairly, and that revenue should be applied to education and public services that provide a measure of equal opportunity, but that's hardly the same as "correct wealth inequality and unfairness".

 

I'll take your word.  

 

Quote:
Why are you making this all about me?

 

I'm not.  I simply got the impression that you're operating from a set of principles I don't share.  


 

Quote:
I don't know about the US, but in the UK the effective tax rate on the wealthiest 10% is less than that on the poorest 10%.  I suspect the US is probably similar since we share a lot of economic blood.  So yes, in those terms I think the wealthy don't pay enough.

 

Delusional.  The UK has a far more progressive taxation system than the US.  In our system, the wealthiest 10% of earners paid 71 percent of the taxes.  No way it's "better" in the UK.  


 

Quote:
I don't know about "vastly", but I'm certainly not against reducing corporation tax and simplifying the code.  I never said anything like that.  I'm against a one-off tax holiday as I think that's a stupid move, and I'm for effective collection of tax and a system that doesn't allow such blatant escape routes for massively wealthy multinational corporations and individuals.

Again, you've ascribed me a position that I've made no mention of.  Stop it.


Ugh, just when I was starting to take your word.  I think you think you're being perfectly reasonable and that in the end we don't disagree all that much.  Maybe it's just the way you write.  For example, you state this:

Quote:

"...a system that doesn't allow such blatant escape routes for massively wealthy multinational corporations and individuals." 

 

 

What I'm telling you is that your statements betray your Statist ideology.  You seem to look at corporations and their capital as prisoners who must be prevented from finding "blatant escape routes."   You seem to think that if you make the prison efficient enough, give some extra yard time to the inmates, and have a simple yet effective security system, everything will be fine.  

 

I don't share this view.  I think that the only thing one can do to get corporations to pay taxes, create jobs and produce is to make the business environment as attractive as possible for them.  That means removing barriers to investment and moving capital into the country.  It's a carrot-and-stick approach rather than a cattle prod approach.  First, I believe the former is morally the right thing to do.  But secondly, I think it's the only effective thing to do.   Because, let me tell you, I don't care what system you come up with, wealthy corporations and individuals will find a way to minimize their liability.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #102 of 108

I really can't be bothered with this ad hominem reasoning.  Debate the point, not some twisted idea you have of me based off your chosen reading of turns of phrase; I've indulged your flights of fancy about what I believe quite enough.  I'm in charge of what I believe, not you, so quit with the ridiculous putting of words into my mouth.  We almost had the beginnings of a good debate there, but your inability to stop doing this has ended it.

 

Btw, "statism" is a very broad term.  Being in favour of a minimalist government that just provides defence and law and order is still statism.  I'm in favour of the existence of a state, so by that measure, sure, I'm a statist and have no shame about that.  I'd even go a fair bit further with education and public health, and more, and I've no shame in that either.  Your attempts to disparage me by ascribing an incredibly broad ideology to me are not only bad form in argument, but are nonsense.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #103 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

I really can't be bothered with this ad hominem reasoning.  Debate the point, not some twisted idea you have of me based off your chosen reading of turns of phrase; I've indulged your flights of fancy about what I believe quite enough.  I'm in charge of what I believe, not you, so quit with the ridiculous putting of words into my mouth.  We almost had the beginnings of a good debate there, but your inability to stop doing this has ended it.

 

Btw, "statism" is a very broad term.  Being in favour of a minimalist government that just provides defence and law and order is still statism.  I'm in favour of the existence of a state, so by that measure, sure, I'm a statist and have no shame about that.  I'd even go a fair bit further with education and public health, and more, and I've no shame in that either.  Your attempts to disparage me by ascribing an incredibly broad ideology to me are not only bad form in argument, but are nonsense.

 

Everything you have written indicates what you believe.  You can dismiss it as name calling, but it's not.  A person's worldview is central to any discussion like this.  Moreover, I am not telling you what you believe...I am telling you what I gather from your posts.  I notice you haven't engaged in what I posted regarding two different approaches to this issue.  You're too worried about screaming "ad hominem" and getting offended about a simple term.  

 

You're right though...we almost had a good debate going there.  If you're done crying, I'd love to see you address the real issue:  The pros and cons of my carrot and stick approach vs. your approach of grasping more tightly, and who--politically speaking---is more likely to embrace each one.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #104 of 108

No, I'm not going to argue with you if at every single juncture you're going to come back with "well you would think that, you're a statist" or "this is a bad idea because you're a statist" as if that's any kind of reasonable response.  It's an ad hominem, it doesn't address the point, it's an assumption on your part, and it's really, really annoying, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain myself.  What you "gather" from my posts about my political position is irrelevant, keep it to yourself.  Unless you commit to stop doing that, we're done.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #105 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

No, I'm not going to argue with you if at every single juncture you're going to come back with "well you would think that, you're a statist" or "this is a bad idea because you're a statist" as if that's any kind of reasonable response.  It's an ad hominem, it doesn't address the point, it's an assumption on your part, and it's really, really annoying, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain myself.  What you "gather" from my posts about my political position is irrelevant, keep it to yourself.  Unless you commit to stop doing that, we're done.

 

Pot, meet kettle.  I never claimed anything was a bad idea because you're a statist.  Oh, and as for me "committing," you can go screw.  You're acting a like a big baby, and it's a waste of my time.  Goodbye.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 108

Pot meet kettle?  When did I ever even come close to claiming anything was a bad idea because of your beliefs?

 

If you didn't say it explicitly then you certainly implied it.  Don't tell me you didn't choose to take aim at my broader political philosophy, instead of the immediate point being discussed.  Exhibit A:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
Your motivation for wanting the change you propose is what I find objectionable.  Ditto on your ultimate goals. 

 

 

I agree, this is a waste of time, though my reasoning is rather different.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #107 of 108

Ruling class typically produces nothing but takes from those who does produce. They do not apply trade in what they do. The EU and large government bodies practices this.

post #108 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Pot meet kettle?  When did I ever even come close to claiming anything was a bad idea because of your beliefs?

 

You didn't.  You simply tried to claim I did state it.  I neither did that. nor implied as much.   Granted, I don't agree with what I perceive to be your underlying philosophy on corporate taxation and the way you'd "reform" the system.   I don't think those changes will ultimately be beneficial to anyone, as I explained in detail.  However, I'm not claiming they won't work and are "bad ideas" because of what I perceive your beliefs to be.  

 

Quote:
If you didn't say it explicitly then you certainly implied it.  

 

Wrong.

 

Quote:
Don't tell me you didn't choose to take aim at my broader political philosophy, instead of the immediate point being discussed.  Exhibit A:

 

I absolutely did choose to take aim at it.  I did not, however, use this as some sort of evidence as to whether or not your ideas would work.  

 

 

Quote:
I agree, this is a waste of time, though my reasoning is rather different.

 

I frankly don't understand what your reasoning is at all.  Look, the way I see it, we have two possible approaches here:  

 

1)  Carrot and stick:  Providing incentives and a positive business/regulatory/taxation climate in order to encourage business development and minimize tax avoidance in the US (and UK, for your sake).  This is the approach I and other free market conservatives/libertarians generally promote.  Predicated on a belief that capital will take the path of least resistance, so we should make the path to the US/UK as resistance free as we can.  

 

2) Cattle prod approach, for lack of a better term:  Close loopholes and force companies registered in the U.S. to pay US taxes regardless of where income was earned.   Predicated on the notion that the current tax scheme allows companies to pay rates far below what they "should" pay, and that they are gaming the current system (albeit legally).     

 

The goal of both approaches is different.  My approach has two aims:  Encourage economic development and prosperity, and raise tax revenue by reducing tax avoidance incentives (lower rates, simpler code), etc.  The second approach has the goal of increasing revenue and making the tax code more "fair" by mandating that large corporations pay a domestic tax rate.  

 

Now, obviously you took great offense at the term "statist."  The reason I used that  is that I find people who embrace approach #2 tend to meet my definition of a statist (that is, one who favors collective rights and action over individual rights and action).  Now clearly, you're not an "absolute" statist.  Such a person would be a full-blown communist, which is certainly not in any sense what I'm claiming.  You also made several derogatory and/or dismissive references to "free market principles."   Either way, I apologize if you were offended.  I also went a little too far with the "baby"comment, though it was meant at least partially in jest.  Apologies for that as well.   

 

It would be better if we stick to the issue.  May I ask:  Which of the two approaches do you favor, and why?  

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › European Union announces tax evasion investigations of Apple, Fiat & Starbucks