The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world after Japan lowered theirs 2 years ago. If I had to pay those kind of rates I'd avoid it also, especially when the US government is one of the least efficient and most fiscally wasteful governments around. Quit punishing businesses for success so you can go on spending sprees to buy votes.
Well, the tax rate and what one actually pays are two totally different things.
For example, GE had an effective tax rate in 2010 of 7%. I may be bad at math, but I'm fairly certain that that is lower that the 35% technical rate.
Anyhow, this is not to say anything bad about Apple, or about this tax situation. They should pay the least they can. That's the way it's set up. I just wanted to point out that having a nominal corporate rate of 35% doesn't mean that most, possibly any, corporations are actually paying 35%.
It's stupid to have corporations paying taxes. Corporations are pieces of paper. People pay taxes. Incomes taxes, taxes on investments, sales taxes, etc.
Tax on profits should be eliminated ... businesses can either make additional profits which in turn are passed to shareholders, or spend it on capital or more employees.
People run corporations you know, and that sounds very much like the trickle down effect which never works.
Um, have YOU ever been to a socialist country? Not just at the tourist spots, the real, everyday life part of the country?
I live in the UK. I grew up under 13 years of socialist government, and the present government isn't dramatically different. It always surprises me when Americans portray socialist states as places where nobody takes responsibility for their own actions and the 'entitlement culture' is driving the state to ruin.
Truth is, it's not unequivocally positive or negative. It has good sides and bad sides. Yes, there are too many people dependent on the state, but there also isn't too many people living in trailer parks or seeing their unemployment benefits cut off because they haven't been able to find a job for a long time. Yes, hospital waiting lists are too long and the NHS has its flaws, but we don't have people not getting treatment because they couldn't afford health insurance, or going to the emergency room and coming out with a huge bill. Yes, our culture is not as business-friendly as it should be, but at least we don't have someone with no political experience within a whisker of a Senate seat, purely because they happen to have $100m in the bank.
Swings and roundabouts, my friends. Many of the countries with the world's highest quality of life (e.g. Scandinavia) are strongly socialist.
While I wouldn't call it a "scam," you are basically right. The more you tax profits, the less profit there will be. The profit will be made to "disappear" in any number of ways. You've listed a few ways that happens.
Why?
Apple should pay its taxes in the U.S. because it's incorporated here. Apple takes advantage of our roads, our courts. The majority of its employees are educated here. It is traded on NASDAQ. Apple enjoys access to the U.S. power grid, and to all the other infrastructure this country has built. Apple enjoys the protections of our military, and the security of our financial system.
If Apple wants to enjoy all these benefits, it should contribute taxes to pay for them.
Wozniak and Jobs didn't build the Apple II in North Korea, or in Germany, but right here. The businesses they worked for (Atari and HP) gave them access to the technology they needed. Woz' father worked at Lockheed, and taught him electrical engineering. There wouldn't be an Apple had they grown up anywhere but Silicon Valley.
These events occurred here, not in some foreign country. Could they have happened somewhere else? I suppose it's possible, but it's no coincidence that Apple, Microsoft, and Google were all started in America.
We Americans stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us, and so we should pay taxes for the privilege of being here.
I dont think Apple needs to be a cut above - Cars etc may be deductible from corp taxes - but the users will pay handsomely for every mile they are not on corp business.
If your company needs to add to retained earnings, as Apple has been doing you cannot avoid the 15 to 35% tax, UNLESS you avoid it by registering income earned overseas.
Why is there an enticement to send more of my work overseas to avoid taxes? you would think that you would get a benefit from investing domestically
Wait, are you suggesting that when Apple invests domestically it pays taxes at 35%? I assume any gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, which brings them down from 35% to somewhere in the twenties.
UK tax authority: "Non-resident trading companies which do not have a branch in the UK, but have UK customers, will therefore pay tax on the profits arising from those customers in the country where the company is resident, according to the tax law in that country. The profits will not be taxed in the UK. This is not tax avoidance: it is simply the way that corporation tax works. [lol emoticon]
Most major economies operate corporation tax in the same way as the UK, so UK-resident companies are treated in a similar way in other countries. In other words, UK companies do not pay corporation tax to another country on the profits from sales in that country, unless they trade through a branch based there. Instead, they pay corporation tax in the UK"
By basing foreign subsidiaries in tax havens, companies only pay corporation tax rates of the tax havens. They are all doing this:
Apple pays some tax in the form of sales tax and employee tax but this is not really paid by Apple, it's paid by customers and employees. The tax in question is the tax on their profits.
- UK customer A earns a salary, they get paid and a chunk is taken in National Insurance and Income Tax (~20% for average UK workers). - customer A walks into an Apple Store and buys an iPhone. 20% is paid in Sales Tax by the customer. - customer A is served by Apple employee B who pays Income Tax and National Insurance (~20%). - Apple deducts costs of making the products from the sale and what they are left with is profit on which corporation tax is due (24%, not 2%).
Through Apple's avoidance of corporation tax, the weight of services paid for by the government such as the fire service if an Apple Store goes on fire, the police if an Apple Store is broken into, the health service if an employee is taken ill - the weight of that expense is taken by customers and employees. This redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
Apple has bases in Ireland and Luxembourg for this. As far as US income tax on these foreign profits, Apple states themselves in the 10-K p61:
"The Company’s consolidated financial statements provide for any related tax liability on amounts that may be repatriated, aside from undistributed earnings of certain of the Company’s foreign subsidiaries that are intended to be indefinitely reinvested in operations outside the U.S. As of September 29, 2012, U.S. income taxes have not been provided on a cumulative total of $40.4 billion of such earnings. The amount of unrecognized deferred tax liability related to these temporary differences is estimated to be approximately $13.8 billion.
As of September 29, 2012 and September 24, 2011, $82.6 billion and $54.3 billion, respectively, of the Company’s cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were held by foreign subsidiaries and are generally based in U.S. dollar-denominated holdings. Amounts held by foreign subsidiaries are generally subject to U.S. income taxation on repatriation to the U.S."
So they don't pay tax until they repatriate the money, which they won't until they get a tax break. They avoid foreign tax through havens and US tax by avoiding repatriation.
There will always be a conflict between business and government because businesses earn through work and have to compete for success whereas government takes some of it without competition or accountability and spends without the consent of those who earned it. It is a necessary conflict however because there are services government provides that cannot be held to the rules of business simply because their profitability is in direct conflict with their service. It is necessary for businesses to pay the appropriate tax because it is necessary for their employees and customers to pay it.
I think the most certain way of fixing this is by taxing based on the shipping address (point of supply) and not the tax haven address (point of sale). The repatriation tax will still need to exist because otherwise legitimate companies selling exlusively overeas would pay no local corporation tax but it should be very low because it's only needed to cover the government services provided to aid the base of operations (the tax can also be linked to local job creation).
This is easy to enforce on physical goods through customs. Digital goods are not so easy as some digital sales won't have an address recorded for the point of supply but they can be based on the point of sale where no address is recorded - most major retailers have records of cardholders or operate location-specific online stores.
It's stupid to have corporations paying taxes. Corporations are pieces of paper. People pay taxes. Incomes taxes, taxes on investments, sales taxes, etc.
Tax on profits should be eliminated ... businesses can either make additional profits which in turn are passed to shareholders, or spend it on capital or more employees.
Corporations are legal persons. They have their own tax returns. They can file lawsuits and negotiate contracts. As separate entities (which can live forever, while their human shareholders can't), they should pay all the same taxes a human being pays. I'll go even further: when a corporation engages in conduct which would get a human executed, the corporation should be eliminated, and its officers jailed.
Why should taxes on profits be eliminated? If you're any good at business you'll find many, many ways to minimize your tax burden, and that's true even for a small business. What is the average effective tax rate for corporations right now? Isn't it around 7%?
Corporations use our infrastructure, and our legal system, and are kept safe by our military and markets. They didn't build that. They should have to pay for the infrastructure they use, hence the taxes they pay.
Apple should pay its taxes in the U.S. because it's incorporated here. Apple takes advantage of our roads, our courts. The majority of its employees are educated here. It is traded on NASDAQ. Apple enjoys access to the U.S. power grid, and to all the other infrastructure this country has built. Apple enjoys the protections of our military, and the security of our financial system.
If Apple wants to enjoy all these benefits, it should contribute taxes to pay for them.
You're implying that Apple doesn't pay any taxes here to pay for any of those things. You are also implying that they don't use those things in other countries and therefore don't need to pay taxes there. Neither is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsimcon
We Americans stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us, and so we should pay taxes for the privilege of being here.
Corporations are legal persons. They have their own tax returns. They can file lawsuits and negotiate contracts. As separate entities (which can live forever, while their human shareholders can't), they should pay all the same taxes a human being pays. I'll go even further: when a corporation engages in conduct which would get a human executed, the corporation should be eliminated, and its officers jailed.
Why should taxes on profits be eliminated? If you're any good at business you'll find many, many ways to minimize your tax burden, and that's true even for a small business. What is the average effective tax rate for corporations right now? Isn't it around 7%?
You don't get it...corporations don't pay taxes. Apple does not pay one dollar in taxes. Think carefully about what I just said and it will make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsimcon
Corporations use our infrastructure, and our legal system, and are kept safe by our military and markets. They didn't build that. They should have to pay for the infrastructure they use, hence the taxes they pay.
Yes they did build that. Who do you think did build that? The taxes paid through them have paid for those things. Stop repeating moronic shit from a moron (Obama.)
Finally, you're assuming that any or all of that needs to be provided by the State. False.
You don't get it...corporations don't pay taxes. Apple does not pay one dollar in taxes. Think carefully about what I just said and it will make sense.
Yes they did build that. Who do you think did build that? The taxes paid through them have paid for those things. Stop repeating moronic shit from a moron (Obama.)
Finally, you're assuming that any or all of that needs to be provided by the State. False.
A state doesn't have to build infrastructure but it behooves them to. Barren land without roads is much more useful when filled with citizens paying property tax, sales tax and income tax. Build it and the tax payers will come.
Taxes are the lowest in 60 years. Corporate taxes seem high but no one pays any so it's meaningless. Didn't you just read the article? Apple paid less than you and I. Way less.
A state doesn't have to build infrastructure but it behooves them to. Barren land without roads is much more useful when filled with citizens paying property tax, sales tax and income tax. Build it and the tax payers will come.
You're missing the point. You are assuming that these things cannot or would not be built without money extraction at the point of a gun (taxes). This is not true. Bottom line, almos tall of it could be privatized. Most people using this argument for taxes are basically begging the question.
I'd say at least as much as you and I seems fair. Why don't you agree? You thin on those billions in profits they should pay less?
I'd be fine if they paid none. I also think think the personal income tax should be eliminated but that's a discussion for another time.
I don't agree with you because taxes on corporate profits are two things: 1) taxes on that corporation's customers. The corporation doesn't pay taxes. And taxing away money that would otherwise be invested for future production.
You're implying that Apple doesn't pay any taxes here to pay for any of those things. You are also implying that they don't use those things in other countries and therefore don't need to pay taxes there. Neither is true.
Blah. Another one of you. I weep for the future of this country. Fucking sheep.
Pretty sure the sheep are the ones thinking business and the 'free market' will regulate itself and keep everything in check. What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own your government and own you?
I'd be fine if they paid none. I also think think the personal income tax should be eliminated but that's a discussion for another time.
I don't agree with you because taxes on corporate profits are two things: 1) taxes on that corporation's customers. The corporation doesn't pay taxes. And taxing away money that would otherwise be invested for future production.
Well if we have to pay tax, then do the F should they. If you want to say no taxes for anyone that's another story I agree. But they should pay AT LEAST as much as everyone else.
1) Why do you think taxes on a corporation's profits are taxes on their customers? You mean because the corporation just extends those 'costs' to their customers? 2) Screw the future investment for that company. They have billions in profits, that's up the them to figure out. Hows' about the future investment for me , my neighbors, my fellow Americans, and the country itself?
Well if we have to pay tax, then do the F should they. If you want to say no taxes for anyone that's another story I agree. But they should pay AT LEAST as much as everyone else.
You don't get it. Pay attention: They don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter what it looks like, they are not paying the taxes. Period. The customers (that's you and me) are paying those taxes. Raise taxes on corporations, you raise taxes on customers.
1) Why do you think taxes on a corporation's profits are taxes on their customers? You mean because the corporation just extends those 'costs' to their customers?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
2) Screw the future investment for that company. They have billions in profits, that's up the them to figure out.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebudda
The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world after Japan lowered theirs 2 years ago. If I had to pay those kind of rates I'd avoid it also, especially when the US government is one of the least efficient and most fiscally wasteful governments around. Quit punishing businesses for success so you can go on spending sprees to buy votes.
Well, the tax rate and what one actually pays are two totally different things.
For example, GE had an effective tax rate in 2010 of 7%. I may be bad at math, but I'm fairly certain that that is lower that the 35% technical rate.
Anyhow, this is not to say anything bad about Apple, or about this tax situation. They should pay the least they can. That's the way it's set up. I just wanted to point out that having a nominal corporate rate of 35% doesn't mean that most, possibly any, corporations are actually paying 35%.
People run corporations you know, and that sounds very much like the trickle down effect which never works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic
Um, have YOU ever been to a socialist country? Not just at the tourist spots, the real, everyday life part of the country?
I live in the UK. I grew up under 13 years of socialist government, and the present government isn't dramatically different. It always surprises me when Americans portray socialist states as places where nobody takes responsibility for their own actions and the 'entitlement culture' is driving the state to ruin.
Truth is, it's not unequivocally positive or negative. It has good sides and bad sides. Yes, there are too many people dependent on the state, but there also isn't too many people living in trailer parks or seeing their unemployment benefits cut off because they haven't been able to find a job for a long time. Yes, hospital waiting lists are too long and the NHS has its flaws, but we don't have people not getting treatment because they couldn't afford health insurance, or going to the emergency room and coming out with a huge bill. Yes, our culture is not as business-friendly as it should be, but at least we don't have someone with no political experience within a whisker of a Senate seat, purely because they happen to have $100m in the bank.
Swings and roundabouts, my friends. Many of the countries with the world's highest quality of life (e.g. Scandinavia) are strongly socialist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
While I wouldn't call it a "scam," you are basically right. The more you tax profits, the less profit there will be. The profit will be made to "disappear" in any number of ways. You've listed a few ways that happens.
Why?
Apple should pay its taxes in the U.S. because it's incorporated here. Apple takes advantage of our roads, our courts. The majority of its employees are educated here. It is traded on NASDAQ. Apple enjoys access to the U.S. power grid, and to all the other infrastructure this country has built. Apple enjoys the protections of our military, and the security of our financial system.
If Apple wants to enjoy all these benefits, it should contribute taxes to pay for them.
Wozniak and Jobs didn't build the Apple II in North Korea, or in Germany, but right here. The businesses they worked for (Atari and HP) gave them access to the technology they needed. Woz' father worked at Lockheed, and taught him electrical engineering. There wouldn't be an Apple had they grown up anywhere but Silicon Valley.
These events occurred here, not in some foreign country. Could they have happened somewhere else? I suppose it's possible, but it's no coincidence that Apple, Microsoft, and Google were all started in America.
We Americans stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us, and so we should pay taxes for the privilege of being here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right_said_fred
I dont think Apple needs to be a cut above - Cars etc may be deductible from corp taxes - but the users will pay handsomely for every mile they are not on corp business.
If your company needs to add to retained earnings, as Apple has been doing you cannot avoid the 15 to 35% tax, UNLESS you avoid it by registering income earned overseas.
Why is there an enticement to send more of my work overseas to avoid taxes? you would think that you would get a benefit from investing domestically
Wait, are you suggesting that when Apple invests domestically it pays taxes at 35%? I assume any gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, which brings them down from 35% to somewhere in the twenties.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20197710
UK tax authority:
"Non-resident trading companies which do not have a branch in the UK, but have UK customers, will therefore pay tax on the profits arising from those customers in the country where the company is resident, according to the tax law in that country. The profits will not be taxed in the UK. This is not tax avoidance: it is simply the way that corporation tax works. [lol emoticon]
Most major economies operate corporation tax in the same way as the UK, so UK-resident companies are treated in a similar way in other countries. In other words, UK companies do not pay corporation tax to another country on the profits from sales in that country, unless they trade through a branch based there. Instead, they pay corporation tax in the UK"
By basing foreign subsidiaries in tax havens, companies only pay corporation tax rates of the tax havens. They are all doing this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220907/eBay-avoids-50m-corporation-tax-channelling-payments-Luxembourg.html
Apple pays some tax in the form of sales tax and employee tax but this is not really paid by Apple, it's paid by customers and employees. The tax in question is the tax on their profits.
- UK customer A earns a salary, they get paid and a chunk is taken in National Insurance and Income Tax (~20% for average UK workers).
- customer A walks into an Apple Store and buys an iPhone. 20% is paid in Sales Tax by the customer.
- customer A is served by Apple employee B who pays Income Tax and National Insurance (~20%).
- Apple deducts costs of making the products from the sale and what they are left with is profit on which corporation tax is due (24%, not 2%).
Through Apple's avoidance of corporation tax, the weight of services paid for by the government such as the fire service if an Apple Store goes on fire, the police if an Apple Store is broken into, the health service if an employee is taken ill - the weight of that expense is taken by customers and employees. This redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
Apple has bases in Ireland and Luxembourg for this. As far as US income tax on these foreign profits, Apple states themselves in the 10-K p61:
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/1700096589x0x610219/112dd7d2-e33a-44ad-b4ea-8870c5dd9281/AAPL_10K_FY12_10.31.12.pdf
"The Company’s consolidated financial statements provide for any related tax liability on amounts that may be repatriated, aside from undistributed earnings of certain of the Company’s foreign subsidiaries that are intended to be indefinitely reinvested in operations outside the U.S. As of September 29, 2012, U.S. income taxes have not been provided on a cumulative total of $40.4 billion of such earnings. The amount of unrecognized deferred tax liability related to these temporary differences is estimated to be approximately $13.8 billion.
As of September 29, 2012 and September 24, 2011, $82.6 billion and $54.3 billion, respectively, of the Company’s cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were held by foreign subsidiaries and are generally based in U.S. dollar-denominated holdings. Amounts held by foreign subsidiaries are generally subject to U.S. income taxation on repatriation to the U.S."
So they don't pay tax until they repatriate the money, which they won't until they get a tax break. They avoid foreign tax through havens and US tax by avoiding repatriation.
There will always be a conflict between business and government because businesses earn through work and have to compete for success whereas government takes some of it without competition or accountability and spends without the consent of those who earned it. It is a necessary conflict however because there are services government provides that cannot be held to the rules of business simply because their profitability is in direct conflict with their service. It is necessary for businesses to pay the appropriate tax because it is necessary for their employees and customers to pay it.
I think the most certain way of fixing this is by taxing based on the shipping address (point of supply) and not the tax haven address (point of sale). The repatriation tax will still need to exist because otherwise legitimate companies selling exlusively overeas would pay no local corporation tax but it should be very low because it's only needed to cover the government services provided to aid the base of operations (the tax can also be linked to local job creation).
This is easy to enforce on physical goods through customs. Digital goods are not so easy as some digital sales won't have an address recorded for the point of supply but they can be based on the point of sale where no address is recorded - most major retailers have records of cardholders or operate location-specific online stores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by axual
It's stupid to have corporations paying taxes. Corporations are pieces of paper. People pay taxes. Incomes taxes, taxes on investments, sales taxes, etc.
Tax on profits should be eliminated ... businesses can either make additional profits which in turn are passed to shareholders, or spend it on capital or more employees.
Corporations are legal persons. They have their own tax returns. They can file lawsuits and negotiate contracts. As separate entities (which can live forever, while their human shareholders can't), they should pay all the same taxes a human being pays. I'll go even further: when a corporation engages in conduct which would get a human executed, the corporation should be eliminated, and its officers jailed.
Why should taxes on profits be eliminated? If you're any good at business you'll find many, many ways to minimize your tax burden, and that's true even for a small business. What is the average effective tax rate for corporations right now? Isn't it around 7%?
Corporations use our infrastructure, and our legal system, and are kept safe by our military and markets. They didn't build that. They should have to pay for the infrastructure they use, hence the taxes they pay.
Nothing illegal either.
Applause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsimcon
Apple should pay its taxes in the U.S. because it's incorporated here. Apple takes advantage of our roads, our courts. The majority of its employees are educated here. It is traded on NASDAQ. Apple enjoys access to the U.S. power grid, and to all the other infrastructure this country has built. Apple enjoys the protections of our military, and the security of our financial system.
If Apple wants to enjoy all these benefits, it should contribute taxes to pay for them.
You're implying that Apple doesn't pay any taxes here to pay for any of those things. You are also implying that they don't use those things in other countries and therefore don't need to pay taxes there. Neither is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsimcon
We Americans stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us, and so we should pay taxes for the privilege of being here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsimcon
Corporations are legal persons. They have their own tax returns. They can file lawsuits and negotiate contracts. As separate entities (which can live forever, while their human shareholders can't), they should pay all the same taxes a human being pays. I'll go even further: when a corporation engages in conduct which would get a human executed, the corporation should be eliminated, and its officers jailed.
Why should taxes on profits be eliminated? If you're any good at business you'll find many, many ways to minimize your tax burden, and that's true even for a small business. What is the average effective tax rate for corporations right now? Isn't it around 7%?
You don't get it...corporations don't pay taxes. Apple does not pay one dollar in taxes. Think carefully about what I just said and it will make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsimcon
Corporations use our infrastructure, and our legal system, and are kept safe by our military and markets. They didn't build that. They should have to pay for the infrastructure they use, hence the taxes they pay.
Yes they did build that. Who do you think did build that? The taxes paid through them have paid for those things. Stop repeating moronic shit from a moron (Obama.)
Finally, you're assuming that any or all of that needs to be provided by the State. False.
A state doesn't have to build infrastructure but it behooves them to. Barren land without roads is much more useful when filled with citizens paying property tax, sales tax and income tax. Build it and the tax payers will come.
Taxes are the lowest in 60 years. Corporate taxes seem high but no one pays any so it's meaningless. Didn't you just read the article? Apple paid less than you and I. Way less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
A state doesn't have to build infrastructure but it behooves them to. Barren land without roads is much more useful when filled with citizens paying property tax, sales tax and income tax. Build it and the tax payers will come.
You're missing the point. You are assuming that these things cannot or would not be built without money extraction at the point of a gun (taxes). This is not true. Bottom line, almos tall of it could be privatized. Most people using this argument for taxes are basically begging the question.
I'd say at least as much as you and I seems fair. Why don't you agree? You thin on those billions in profits they should pay less?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
I'd say at least as much as you and I seems fair. Why don't you agree? You thin on those billions in profits they should pay less?
I'd be fine if they paid none. I also think think the personal income tax should be eliminated but that's a discussion for another time.
I don't agree with you because taxes on corporate profits are two things: 1) taxes on that corporation's customers. The corporation doesn't pay taxes. And taxing away money that would otherwise be invested for future production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
You're implying that Apple doesn't pay any taxes here to pay for any of those things. You are also implying that they don't use those things in other countries and therefore don't need to pay taxes there. Neither is true.
Blah. Another one of you.
Pretty sure the sheep are the ones thinking business and the 'free market' will regulate itself and keep everything in check. What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own your government and own you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Pretty sure the sheep are the ones thinking business and the 'free market' will regulate itself and keep everything in check.
And I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own your government and own you?
What the **** do you think is happening right now?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
I'd be fine if they paid none. I also think think the personal income tax should be eliminated but that's a discussion for another time.
I don't agree with you because taxes on corporate profits are two things: 1) taxes on that corporation's customers. The corporation doesn't pay taxes. And taxing away money that would otherwise be invested for future production.
Well if we have to pay tax, then do the F should they. If you want to say no taxes for anyone that's another story I agree. But they should pay AT LEAST as much as everyone else.
1) Why do you think taxes on a corporation's profits are taxes on their customers? You mean because the corporation just extends those 'costs' to their customers? 2) Screw the future investment for that company. They have billions in profits, that's up the them to figure out. Hows' about the future investment for me , my neighbors, my fellow Americans, and the country itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
Well if we have to pay tax, then do the F should they. If you want to say no taxes for anyone that's another story I agree. But they should pay AT LEAST as much as everyone else.
You don't get it. Pay attention: They don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter what it looks like, they are not paying the taxes. Period. The customers (that's you and me) are paying those taxes. Raise taxes on corporations, you raise taxes on customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
1) Why do you think taxes on a corporation's profits are taxes on their customers? You mean because the corporation just extends those 'costs' to their customers?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie
2) Screw the future investment for that company. They have billions in profits, that's up the them to figure out.
Brilliant.