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.
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
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.
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.
So magically, world hunger will simply end if the U.S. spends 5% less on defense?
:???:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
I am talking about the law in one country, the US, not the laws of other countries. Other countries set their own tax laws.
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.
If Japan wants them to, yes.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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'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] Are you suggesting they are? Effective corporation tax rate on non-US profits of 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]
Not especially. I think tax should be [I]collected[/I] 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 name="SDW2001" url="/t/180559/european-union-announces-tax-evasion-investigations-of-apple-fiat-starbucks/80#post_2550952"] OK. Let me ask then....are you suggesting the wealthy don't pay enough now?
[/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.
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.
[/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.
Comments
Interesting fact:
World hunger could be totally eradicated if the United States ALONE were to reduce it's yearly defence budget by 5%.
How?
Seek and ye shall find...
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.
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:
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.
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.
Seek and ye shall find...
So magically, world hunger will simply end if the U.S. spends 5% less on defense?
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.
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?
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.
That's the entire implication of the statement.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Wow. Just, wow. You should run for Congress. You think an awful lot like many of them.
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.
I don't believe you have. And you can stick your opinion on bad form where you put the previous condescension.
Yes....
OK.
But what you are then pushing for is additional U.S. taxation. That is the problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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."
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!
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?
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'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]
Are you suggesting they are? Effective corporation tax rate on non-US profits of 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]
Not especially. I think tax should be [I]collected[/I] 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 name="SDW2001" url="/t/180559/european-union-announces-tax-evasion-investigations-of-apple-fiat-starbucks/80#post_2550952"]
OK. Let me ask then....are you suggesting the wealthy don't pay enough now?
[/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.
[QUOTE name="SDW2001" url="/t/180559/european-union-announces-tax-evasion-investigations-of-apple-fiat-starbucks/80#post_2550952"]
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.
[/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.