If you think that statement could possibly be true, then you're part of the problem. You're claiming that if the United States reduced its defense budget by about 40 billion dollars, we could end world hunger. Laughably stupid in so many ways.
Doesn't matter who the messenger is if the facts are accurate. Is his argument logical? The better question would be are his facts wrong? Worrying about the individual is not a counter to a valid argument or concern.
I 100% agree with you too. If the argument is valid and the facts correct then who the messenger is doesn't much matter.
: Indeed! : Context, context. : Are you lost or what?
You act as tho you disagree with something I asked or said but I've no idea what it is. :???: I asked if the reference was to an actor/comedian, confirming that was the OP's intent. So. . . . ??
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
Even more interesting is this "fact" is not a fact and is not based in reality. World hunger is much more a situation of logistics and corruption than it is money.
Even more interesting is this "fact" is not a fact and is not based in reality. World hunger is much more a situation of logistics and corruption than it is money.
We aren't even there yet. The claim was that an equivalent $40 Billion expenditure would solve world hunger. In fact, not even that...the claim was the there mere act of the U.S. reducing our defense budget by that amount would solve the problem. There wasn't even any follow-up on where that money would go!
If the law specifically refers to Blu-ray and DVD media then Apple isn't breaking any laws. It would be the same for Blu-ray and DVDs if the law was written in the 80s to specifically refer to VHS and Betamax.
Maybe Apple is "technically" respecting the law, but its still a loophole. I dont know the way the law was writing so its still possible Apple is illegal, depending on the way the law was done. Either the law is to specific and mention medias or its clear and applies to movies and tv content in genenal but is not "enforce" in the digital world.
As far as I am concerned, movies and tv shows should be force to include spanish/portugese/french/english soundtracks on all movies sold in north and south america.
I'm afraid that if movies and tv shows were forced to have all those different language soundtracks, the sound would become an unintelligible mess. Trying to listen to four different languages at once? P-lease!
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
Don't know. But it might be same reason some people post here in every thread saying the Beats headphones suck, over and over again.
If Apple hadn't bought Beats, they would be able to give every man, woman, child and donkey one iPhone each for the rest of their life. And that's no exaggeration.
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
Not really. See, there are people already trying to feed hungry children in Africa, Asia, India, but the aid workers keep getting murdered, kidnapped, raped or arrested. The only solution to world hunger is education. And that includes realizing that you should not have children if you cannot support them.
So poor people should not be allowed to have children? So when you're old and decrepit, you can look forward to no-one looking after you and die lonely, unloved and forgotten?
Corporation tax in the US is not 10%, so why should US companies get beneficial tax treatment from conducting business outside of the US?
Why? Because there would be some form of "double taxation". You don't want to be taxed twice, or arbitrarily, on the same income. Rather reminds me of why USA split from UK in the first place!
So, different ways exist to reduce your taxable incomes legally -- and whether one would call them "loopholes" or not, they legally exist.
A relative of mine lived in the Ukraine for many years. He noted that if a corporation dutifully paid all the taxes that were on the books, they would be paying more than 100% of their income! Impossible. And yet, that was what the "law" called for. So, you can also bet there were all sorts of legal (and illegal) loopholes. I realize that is extreme, and 100% is a little different than, say, 30%; but the point is that a nation could bear to re-examine what they are asking if very few constituents are meeting the desired level of commitment.
Why? Because there would be some form of "double taxation". You don't want to be taxed twice, or arbitrarily, on the same income. Rather reminds me of why USA split from UK in the first place!
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%.
AFAIK you've misunderstood then. According to records Apple pays virtually no company taxes on the profits from hardware sales in France, Italy, Spain and other EU countries. Because Apple has assigned certain IP to it's Irish subsidiary it collects licensing/royalty fees on products sold in the EU using that intellectual property with that money flowing to Ireland where technically the corporate tax rate is 12.5% (not 2%). Worse at least two of the three Ireland-resident but Apple-controlled companies don't even pay taxes to Ireland as they say they have no tax residency there nor anyplace else in the world.
Are you sure all that IP transfer business is, in fact, what is happening in Apple's case? Sure, that is what would be happening in the *typical* "Irish-flim-flam-with-a-Dutch-sandwich" or whatever it is called. But, I thought Apple had basically denied doing that specifically?
My immediate thought is that it is much more straightforward:
When purchases are made throughout Europe at a physical Apple Store or Reseller, which are physically located on the ground in various countries, then those sales would be booked at location and the income taxable in that location...
BUT, if the purchase is made online, as is most often the case, then the "store" doing the selling is based in Ireland and the product or service originates there. Apple's Irish presence isn't merely a PO Box and a re-routed phone number for some shell company, it is a large, physical operation.
Most sales are made online; few countries even have a physical Apple Store, or just got one. Therefore, most European income is under Irish taxation and not the country where the buyer resides. (And obviously Apple and others chose Ireland for a reason, just as US-based corporations choose a state). You add up all the online sales across the whole of Europe, and the local sales made within any one country (even the UK) pale into insignificance.
How is unrealistic? Companies already report their figures to the countries that they operate in, so what is unrealistic about those figures being combined for all wholly-owned companies in a group? The numbers exist, adding them together is not only not unrealistic, it's not even particularly hard! Breaking it down country-by-country might be tricky if you wanted to take that approach for unitary taxation, but that's what auditors are for (I also favour much harsher rules for auditors to comply with).
A little bit of cooperation, a well policed companies-register and record of ownership, and some carrots and sticks applied in the form of law. There you have it, not a problem.
Don't see what "the principles of the free market" or the nature of capital have to do with anything. We're talking about taxation which is, by definition, a distortion of the free market. Capital also flows where the law says it has to flow, when the law does so.
Unrealistic, because it will never happen politically. 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.
That is an option, and is a race-to-the-bottom recipe for disaster.
A race to the bottom---by removing obstacles for investment? WTF?
Another option is to remove the alternatives and for state tax authorities to show some backbone. Demand country-by-country, or demand repatriation, either are good, but the middle ground we're currently in is most definitely bad.
You seem to love when governments "demand" things. I don't think a lack of backbone is the issue. It's stupid, anti-business investment policy that's the issue.
Is it the intention of the law? No, the intention is that they repatriate, the law just wasn't made robust enough to ensure that happens. So change the law so that it does or come up with an alternative.
In a way, yes. Ireland has tax laws that attract business. So does Texas, which is attracting business all over the place.
I'm not talking about international tax law, I'm talking about US tax law. And hopefully other countries as well, but since we're talking about Apple let's start with the US.
And it really isn't all that complicated. The money men would have you think that it is, to stop inconvenient questions, but it's not beyond the comprehension of average people.
No, you wave a pen over a tax bill and get a presidential signature on a proper system that holds all kinds of companies to the same mark.
US tax law is international. And yes, it's extremely complicated. That's why Apple and other corporations spend millions on attorneys and accountants. In fact, that complexity is part of the problem. If we had a sane corporate tax policy in this country, we'd never have this.
What a complete arsehole of a post. So poor people should not be allowed to have children? So when you're old and decrepit, you can look forward to no-one looking after you and die lonely, unloved and forgotten?
Got it.
Firstly, the world can't provide for the exponentially growing number of humans forever. Complaining about being alone blah blah is just selfish on a global basis.
Secondly it's nothing to do with wealth, in many African countries there simply isn't enough fertile land to provide food for all the inhabitants no matter how much money people have. Too many humans, not enough space. That won't be helped by pumping out even more kids at rates much faster than developed countries. The kids often die from malnutrition and disease way before the parents gets "old and decrepit" anyway, so not only do you die old and decrepit, you die knowing your poor child had a terrible life of disease and hunger. </off topic>
3) Every now and then the term "spirit of the law" crops up. This means nothing. You might as well say that actual spirits have whispered into the lawmakers' ear to tell them its meaning.
That, or they took the laws mixed them with yeast, fermented, then distilled into a 'spirit of the law'.
Are you sure all that IP transfer business is, in fact, what is happening in Apple's case? Sure, that is what would be happening in the *typical* "Irish-flim-flam-with-a-Dutch-sandwich" or whatever it is called. But, I thought Apple had basically denied doing that specifically?
If you doubt what I wrote just search up the facts for yourself. Do a websearch with the terms "Apple IP Ireland royalties". I think you'll dicover I was pretty accurate.
Comments
That last comment was not serious.
WHY?
You should say that to Aasif Mandvi ( Third World Health Care - Knoxville, Tennessee Edition )
If you think that statement could possibly be true, then you're part of the problem. You're claiming that if the United States reduced its defense budget by about 40 billion dollars, we could end world hunger. Laughably stupid in so many ways.
I do but perhaps you may not. What do you get when you click on the red text link that's his name? :rolleyes:
I 100% agree with you too. If the argument is valid and the facts correct then who the messenger is doesn't much matter.
I do but perhaps you may not. What do you get when you click on the red text link that's his name?
A link to a comedy show (The Daily Show) where that same actor/comedian from the red hyperlink performs.
A link to a comedy show (The Daily Show) where that same actor/comedian from the red hyperlink performs.
You act as tho you disagree with something I asked or said but I've no idea what it is. :???: I asked if the reference was to an actor/comedian, confirming that was the OP's intent. So. . . . ??
So yes, you have me completely lost
Even more interesting is this "fact" is not a fact and is not based in reality. World hunger is much more a situation of logistics and corruption than it is money.
Even more interesting is this "fact" is not a fact and is not based in reality. World hunger is much more a situation of logistics and corruption than it is money.
We aren't even there yet. The claim was that an equivalent $40 Billion expenditure would solve world hunger. In fact, not even that...the claim was the there mere act of the U.S. reducing our defense budget by that amount would solve the problem. There wasn't even any follow-up on where that money would go!
If the law specifically refers to Blu-ray and DVD media then Apple isn't breaking any laws. It would be the same for Blu-ray and DVDs if the law was written in the 80s to specifically refer to VHS and Betamax.
Maybe Apple is "technically" respecting the law, but its still a loophole. I dont know the way the law was writing so its still possible Apple is illegal, depending on the way the law was done. Either the law is to specific and mention medias or its clear and applies to movies and tv content in genenal but is not "enforce" in the digital world.
As far as I am concerned, movies and tv shows should be force to include spanish/portugese/french/english soundtracks on all movies sold in north and south america.
I'm afraid that if movies and tv shows were forced to have all those different language soundtracks, the sound would become an unintelligible mess. Trying to listen to four different languages at once? P-lease!
Interesting fact:
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
Don't know. But it might be same reason some people post here in every thread saying the Beats headphones suck, over and over again.
If Apple hadn't bought Beats, they would be able to give every man, woman, child and donkey one iPhone each for the rest of their life. And that's no exaggeration.
Interesting fact:
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
Not really. See, there are people already trying to feed hungry children in Africa, Asia, India, but the aid workers keep getting murdered, kidnapped, raped or arrested. The only solution to world hunger is education. And that includes realizing that you should not have children if you cannot support them.
So poor people should not be allowed to have children? So when you're old and decrepit, you can look forward to no-one looking after you and die lonely, unloved and forgotten?
Got it.
Corporation tax in the US is not 10%, so why should US companies get beneficial tax treatment from conducting business outside of the US?
Why? Because there would be some form of "double taxation". You don't want to be taxed twice, or arbitrarily, on the same income. Rather reminds me of why USA split from UK in the first place!
So, different ways exist to reduce your taxable incomes legally -- and whether one would call them "loopholes" or not, they legally exist.
A relative of mine lived in the Ukraine for many years. He noted that if a corporation dutifully paid all the taxes that were on the books, they would be paying more than 100% of their income! Impossible. And yet, that was what the "law" called for. So, you can also bet there were all sorts of legal (and illegal) loopholes. I realize that is extreme, and 100% is a little different than, say, 30%; but the point is that a nation could bear to re-examine what they are asking if very few constituents are meeting the desired level of commitment.
AFAIK you've misunderstood then. According to records Apple pays virtually no company taxes on the profits from hardware sales in France, Italy, Spain and other EU countries. Because Apple has assigned certain IP to it's Irish subsidiary it collects licensing/royalty fees on products sold in the EU using that intellectual property with that money flowing to Ireland where technically the corporate tax rate is 12.5% (not 2%). Worse at least two of the three Ireland-resident but Apple-controlled companies don't even pay taxes to Ireland as they say they have no tax residency there nor anyplace else in the world.
Are you sure all that IP transfer business is, in fact, what is happening in Apple's case? Sure, that is what would be happening in the *typical* "Irish-flim-flam-with-a-Dutch-sandwich" or whatever it is called. But, I thought Apple had basically denied doing that specifically?
My immediate thought is that it is much more straightforward:
When purchases are made throughout Europe at a physical Apple Store or Reseller, which are physically located on the ground in various countries, then those sales would be booked at location and the income taxable in that location...
BUT, if the purchase is made online, as is most often the case, then the "store" doing the selling is based in Ireland and the product or service originates there. Apple's Irish presence isn't merely a PO Box and a re-routed phone number for some shell company, it is a large, physical operation.
Most sales are made online; few countries even have a physical Apple Store, or just got one. Therefore, most European income is under Irish taxation and not the country where the buyer resides. (And obviously Apple and others chose Ireland for a reason, just as US-based corporations choose a state). You add up all the online sales across the whole of Europe, and the local sales made within any one country (even the UK) pale into insignificance.
How is unrealistic? Companies already report their figures to the countries that they operate in, so what is unrealistic about those figures being combined for all wholly-owned companies in a group? The numbers exist, adding them together is not only not unrealistic, it's not even particularly hard! Breaking it down country-by-country might be tricky if you wanted to take that approach for unitary taxation, but that's what auditors are for (I also favour much harsher rules for auditors to comply with).
A little bit of cooperation, a well policed companies-register and record of ownership, and some carrots and sticks applied in the form of law. There you have it, not a problem.
Don't see what "the principles of the free market" or the nature of capital have to do with anything. We're talking about taxation which is, by definition, a distortion of the free market. Capital also flows where the law says it has to flow, when the law does so.
Unrealistic, because it will never happen politically. 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.
That is an option, and is a race-to-the-bottom recipe for disaster.
A race to the bottom---by removing obstacles for investment? WTF?
Another option is to remove the alternatives and for state tax authorities to show some backbone. Demand country-by-country, or demand repatriation, either are good, but the middle ground we're currently in is most definitely bad.
You seem to love when governments "demand" things. I don't think a lack of backbone is the issue. It's stupid, anti-business investment policy that's the issue.
Is it the intention of the law? No, the intention is that they repatriate, the law just wasn't made robust enough to ensure that happens. So change the law so that it does or come up with an alternative.
In a way, yes. Ireland has tax laws that attract business. So does Texas, which is attracting business all over the place.
I'm not talking about international tax law, I'm talking about US tax law. And hopefully other countries as well, but since we're talking about Apple let's start with the US.
And it really isn't all that complicated. The money men would have you think that it is, to stop inconvenient questions, but it's not beyond the comprehension of average people.
No, you wave a pen over a tax bill and get a presidential signature on a proper system that holds all kinds of companies to the same mark.
US tax law is international. And yes, it's extremely complicated. That's why Apple and other corporations spend millions on attorneys and accountants. In fact, that complexity is part of the problem. If we had a sane corporate tax policy in this country, we'd never have this.
Firstly, the world can't provide for the exponentially growing number of humans forever. Complaining about being alone blah blah is just selfish on a global basis.
Secondly it's nothing to do with wealth, in many African countries there simply isn't enough fertile land to provide food for all the inhabitants no matter how much money people have. Too many humans, not enough space. That won't be helped by pumping out even more kids at rates much faster than developed countries. The kids often die from malnutrition and disease way before the parents gets "old and decrepit" anyway, so not only do you die old and decrepit, you die knowing your poor child had a terrible life of disease and hunger. </off topic>
That, or they took the laws mixed them with yeast, fermented, then distilled into a 'spirit of the law'.
If you doubt what I wrote just search up the facts for yourself. Do a websearch with the terms "Apple IP Ireland royalties". I think you'll dicover I was pretty accurate.