Are you suggesting they are? Effective corporation tax rate on non-US profits of <10%, while local companies in your area are stuck at ~35% ?
Don't you think that kind of imbalance is fuelling an anti-competitive environment?
No corporation is actually paying 35%, and I think you know that. Ironically--and this is what you can't seem to understand--if we'd have a flat tax rate of less than 10%, you'd see more revenue and less avoidance. If you make the rate low enough, Apple et al would have no incentive to use international tax laws to play hide-and-go-seek with their money.
Quote:
I don't think I used the word demand a lot at all, twice by my count in the same sentence back on page 1, and I was using it as a synonym for legislate, with the implication that it is needed to enforce a principle. You used it more in your cute little "demand" quotations back at me to casually imply I was some kind of totalitarian.
At no time did I call you a totalitarian. I said you were a Statist. To be frank, I still think you are....though perhaps not as much so as I originally gleaned. It's OK..some of our much more libertarian members have called me a Statist.
Quote:
Not especially. I think tax should be collected fairly, and that revenue should be applied to education and public services that provide a measure of equal opportunity, but that's hardly the same as "correct wealth inequality and unfairness".
I'll take your word.
Quote:
Why are you making this all about me?
I'm not. I simply got the impression that you're operating from a set of principles I don't share.
Quote:
I don't know about the US, but in the UK the effective tax rate on the wealthiest 10% is less than that on the poorest 10%. I suspect the US is probably similar since we share a lot of economic blood. So yes, in those terms I think the wealthy don't pay enough.
Delusional. The UK has a far more progressive taxation system than the US. In our system, the wealthiest 10% of earners paid 71 percent of the taxes. No way it's "better" in the UK.
Quote:
I don't know about "vastly", but I'm certainly not against reducing corporation tax and simplifying the code. I never said anything like that. I'm against a one-off tax holiday as I think that's a stupid move, and I'm for effective collection of tax and a system that doesn't allow such blatant escape routes for massively wealthy multinational corporations and individuals.
Again, you've ascribed me a position that I've made no mention of. Stop it.
Ugh, just when I was starting to take your word. I think you think you're being perfectly reasonable and that in the end we don't disagree all that much. Maybe it's just the way you write. For example, you state this:
Quote:
"...a system that doesn't allow such blatant escape routes for massively wealthy multinational corporations and individuals."
What I'm telling you is that your statements betray your Statist ideology. You seem to look at corporations and their capital as prisoners who must be prevented from finding "blatant escape routes." You seem to think that if you make the prison efficient enough, give some extra yard time to the inmates, and have a simple yet effective security system, everything will be fine.
I don't share this view. I think that the only thing one can do to get corporations to pay taxes, create jobs and produce is to make the business environment as attractive as possible for them. That means removing barriers to investment and moving capital into the country. It's a carrot-and-stick approach rather than a cattle prod approach. First, I believe the former is morally the right thing to do. But secondly, I think it's the only effective thing to do. Because, let me tell you, I don't care what system you come up with, wealthy corporations and individuals will find a way to minimize their liability.
I really can't be bothered with this ad hominem reasoning. Debate the point, not some twisted idea you have of me based off your chosen reading of turns of phrase; I've indulged your flights of fancy about what I believe quite enough. I'm in charge of what I believe, not you, so quit with the ridiculous putting of words into my mouth. We almost had the beginnings of a good debate there, but your inability to stop doing this has ended it.
Btw, "statism" is a very broad term. Being in favour of a minimalist government that just provides defence and law and order is still statism. I'm in favour of the existence of a state, so by that measure, sure, I'm a statist and have no shame about that. I'd even go a fair bit further with education and public health, and more, and I've no shame in that either. Your attempts to disparage me by ascribing an incredibly broad ideology to me are not only bad form in argument, but are nonsense.
I really can't be bothered with this ad hominem reasoning. Debate the point, not some twisted idea you have of me based off your chosen reading of turns of phrase; I've indulged your flights of fancy about what I believe quite enough. I'm in charge of what I believe, not you, so quit with the ridiculous putting of words into my mouth. We almost had the beginnings of a good debate there, but your inability to stop doing this has ended it.
Btw, "statism" is a very broad term. Being in favour of a minimalist government that just provides defence and law and order is still statism. I'm in favour of the existence of a state, so by that measure, sure, I'm a statist and have no shame about that. I'd even go a fair bit further with education and public health, and more, and I've no shame in that either. Your attempts to disparage me by ascribing an incredibly broad ideology to me are not only bad form in argument, but are nonsense.
Everything you have written indicates what you believe. You can dismiss it as name calling, but it's not. A person's worldview is central to any discussion like this. Moreover, I am not telling you what you believe...I am telling you what I gather from your posts. I notice you haven't engaged in what I posted regarding two different approaches to this issue. You're too worried about screaming "ad hominem" and getting offended about a simple term.
You're right though...we almost had a good debate going there. If you're done crying, I'd love to see you address the real issue: The pros and cons of my carrot and stick approach vs. your approach of grasping more tightly, and who--politically speaking---is more likely to embrace each one.
No, I'm not going to argue with you if at every single juncture you're going to come back with "well you would think that, you're a statist" or "this is a bad idea because you're a statist" as if that's any kind of reasonable response. It's an ad hominem, it doesn't address the point, it's an assumption on your part, and it's really, really annoying, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain myself. What you "gather" from my posts about my political position is irrelevant, keep it to yourself. Unless you commit to stop doing that, we're done.
No, I'm not going to argue with you if at every single juncture you're going to come back with "well you would think that, you're a statist" or "this is a bad idea because you're a statist" as if that's any kind of reasonable response. It's an ad hominem, it doesn't address the point, it's an assumption on your part, and it's really, really annoying, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain myself. What you "gather" from my posts about my political position is irrelevant, keep it to yourself. Unless you commit to stop doing that, we're done.
Pot, meet kettle. I never claimed anything was a bad idea because you're a statist. Oh, and as for me "committing," you can go screw. You're acting a like a big baby, and it's a waste of my time. Goodbye.
Pot meet kettle? When did I ever even come close to claiming anything was a bad idea because of your beliefs?
If you didn't say it explicitly then you certainly implied it. Don't tell me you didn't choose to take aim at my broader political philosophy, instead of the immediate point being discussed. Exhibit A:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Your motivation for wanting the change you propose is what I find objectionable. Ditto on your ultimate goals.
I agree, this is a waste of time, though my reasoning is rather different.
Ruling class typically produces nothing but takes from those who does produce. They do not apply trade in what they do. The EU and large government bodies practices this.
Pot meet kettle? When did I ever even come close to claiming anything was a bad idea because of your beliefs?
You didn't. You simply tried to claim I did state it. I neither did that. nor implied as much. Granted, I don't agree with what I perceive to be your underlying philosophy on corporate taxation and the way you'd "reform" the system. I don't think those changes will ultimately be beneficial to anyone, as I explained in detail. However, I'm not claiming they won't work and are "bad ideas" because of what I perceive your beliefs to be.
Quote:
If you didn't say it explicitly then you certainly implied it.
Wrong.
Quote:
Don't tell me you didn't choose to take aim at my broader political philosophy, instead of the immediate point being discussed. Exhibit A:
I absolutely did choose to take aim at it. I did not, however, use this as some sort of evidence as to whether or not your ideas would work.
Quote:
I agree, this is a waste of time, though my reasoning is rather different.
I frankly don't understand what your reasoning is at all. Look, the way I see it, we have two possible approaches here:
1) Carrot and stick: Providing incentives and a positive business/regulatory/taxation climate in order to encourage business development and minimize tax avoidance in the US (and UK, for your sake). This is the approach I and other free market conservatives/libertarians generally promote. Predicated on a belief that capital will take the path of least resistance, so we should make the path to the US/UK as resistance free as we can.
2) Cattle prod approach, for lack of a better term: Close loopholes and force companies registered in the U.S. to pay US taxes regardless of where income was earned. Predicated on the notion that the current tax scheme allows companies to pay rates far below what they "should" pay, and that they are gaming the current system (albeit legally).
The goal of both approaches is different. My approach has two aims: Encourage economic development and prosperity, and raise tax revenue by reducing tax avoidance incentives (lower rates, simpler code), etc. The second approach has the goal of increasing revenue and making the tax code more "fair" by mandating that large corporations pay a domestic tax rate.
Now, obviously you took great offense at the term "statist." The reason I used that is that I find people who embrace approach #2 tend to meet my definition of a statist (that is, one who favors collective rights and action over individual rights and action). Now clearly, you're not an "absolute" statist. Such a person would be a full-blown communist, which is certainly not in any sense what I'm claiming. You also made several derogatory and/or dismissive references to "free market principles." Either way, I apologize if you were offended. I also went a little too far with the "baby"comment, though it was meant at least partially in jest. Apologies for that as well.
It would be better if we stick to the issue. May I ask: Which of the two approaches do you favor, and why?
Comments
Are you suggesting they are? Effective corporation tax rate on non-US profits of <10%, while local companies in your area are stuck at ~35% ?
No corporation is actually paying 35%, and I think you know that. Ironically--and this is what you can't seem to understand--if we'd have a flat tax rate of less than 10%, you'd see more revenue and less avoidance. If you make the rate low enough, Apple et al would have no incentive to use international tax laws to play hide-and-go-seek with their money.
At no time did I call you a totalitarian. I said you were a Statist. To be frank, I still think you are....though perhaps not as much so as I originally gleaned. It's OK..some of our much more libertarian members have called me a Statist.
I'll take your word.
I'm not. I simply got the impression that you're operating from a set of principles I don't share.
Delusional. The UK has a far more progressive taxation system than the US. In our system, the wealthiest 10% of earners paid 71 percent of the taxes. No way it's "better" in the UK.
Again, you've ascribed me a position that I've made no mention of. Stop it.
Ugh, just when I was starting to take your word. I think you think you're being perfectly reasonable and that in the end we don't disagree all that much. Maybe it's just the way you write. For example, you state this:
"...a system that doesn't allow such blatant escape routes for massively wealthy multinational corporations and individuals."
What I'm telling you is that your statements betray your Statist ideology. You seem to look at corporations and their capital as prisoners who must be prevented from finding "blatant escape routes." You seem to think that if you make the prison efficient enough, give some extra yard time to the inmates, and have a simple yet effective security system, everything will be fine.
I don't share this view. I think that the only thing one can do to get corporations to pay taxes, create jobs and produce is to make the business environment as attractive as possible for them. That means removing barriers to investment and moving capital into the country. It's a carrot-and-stick approach rather than a cattle prod approach. First, I believe the former is morally the right thing to do. But secondly, I think it's the only effective thing to do. Because, let me tell you, I don't care what system you come up with, wealthy corporations and individuals will find a way to minimize their liability.
I really can't be bothered with this ad hominem reasoning. Debate the point, not some twisted idea you have of me based off your chosen reading of turns of phrase; I've indulged your flights of fancy about what I believe quite enough. I'm in charge of what I believe, not you, so quit with the ridiculous putting of words into my mouth. We almost had the beginnings of a good debate there, but your inability to stop doing this has ended it.
Btw, "statism" is a very broad term. Being in favour of a minimalist government that just provides defence and law and order is still statism. I'm in favour of the existence of a state, so by that measure, sure, I'm a statist and have no shame about that. I'd even go a fair bit further with education and public health, and more, and I've no shame in that either. Your attempts to disparage me by ascribing an incredibly broad ideology to me are not only bad form in argument, but are nonsense.
I really can't be bothered with this ad hominem reasoning. Debate the point, not some twisted idea you have of me based off your chosen reading of turns of phrase; I've indulged your flights of fancy about what I believe quite enough. I'm in charge of what I believe, not you, so quit with the ridiculous putting of words into my mouth. We almost had the beginnings of a good debate there, but your inability to stop doing this has ended it.
Btw, "statism" is a very broad term. Being in favour of a minimalist government that just provides defence and law and order is still statism. I'm in favour of the existence of a state, so by that measure, sure, I'm a statist and have no shame about that. I'd even go a fair bit further with education and public health, and more, and I've no shame in that either. Your attempts to disparage me by ascribing an incredibly broad ideology to me are not only bad form in argument, but are nonsense.
Everything you have written indicates what you believe. You can dismiss it as name calling, but it's not. A person's worldview is central to any discussion like this. Moreover, I am not telling you what you believe...I am telling you what I gather from your posts. I notice you haven't engaged in what I posted regarding two different approaches to this issue. You're too worried about screaming "ad hominem" and getting offended about a simple term.
You're right though...we almost had a good debate going there. If you're done crying, I'd love to see you address the real issue: The pros and cons of my carrot and stick approach vs. your approach of grasping more tightly, and who--politically speaking---is more likely to embrace each one.
No, I'm not going to argue with you if at every single juncture you're going to come back with "well you would think that, you're a statist" or "this is a bad idea because you're a statist" as if that's any kind of reasonable response. It's an ad hominem, it doesn't address the point, it's an assumption on your part, and it's really, really annoying, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain myself. What you "gather" from my posts about my political position is irrelevant, keep it to yourself. Unless you commit to stop doing that, we're done.
No, I'm not going to argue with you if at every single juncture you're going to come back with "well you would think that, you're a statist" or "this is a bad idea because you're a statist" as if that's any kind of reasonable response. It's an ad hominem, it doesn't address the point, it's an assumption on your part, and it's really, really annoying, especially after I've gone out of my way to explain myself. What you "gather" from my posts about my political position is irrelevant, keep it to yourself. Unless you commit to stop doing that, we're done.
Pot, meet kettle. I never claimed anything was a bad idea because you're a statist. Oh, and as for me "committing," you can go screw. You're acting a like a big baby, and it's a waste of my time. Goodbye.
Pot meet kettle? When did I ever even come close to claiming anything was a bad idea because of your beliefs?
If you didn't say it explicitly then you certainly implied it. Don't tell me you didn't choose to take aim at my broader political philosophy, instead of the immediate point being discussed. Exhibit A:
I agree, this is a waste of time, though my reasoning is rather different.
Ruling class typically produces nothing but takes from those who does produce. They do not apply trade in what they do. The EU and large government bodies practices this.
Pot meet kettle? When did I ever even come close to claiming anything was a bad idea because of your beliefs?
You didn't. You simply tried to claim I did state it. I neither did that. nor implied as much. Granted, I don't agree with what I perceive to be your underlying philosophy on corporate taxation and the way you'd "reform" the system. I don't think those changes will ultimately be beneficial to anyone, as I explained in detail. However, I'm not claiming they won't work and are "bad ideas" because of what I perceive your beliefs to be.
Wrong.
I absolutely did choose to take aim at it. I did not, however, use this as some sort of evidence as to whether or not your ideas would work.
I frankly don't understand what your reasoning is at all. Look, the way I see it, we have two possible approaches here:
1) Carrot and stick: Providing incentives and a positive business/regulatory/taxation climate in order to encourage business development and minimize tax avoidance in the US (and UK, for your sake). This is the approach I and other free market conservatives/libertarians generally promote. Predicated on a belief that capital will take the path of least resistance, so we should make the path to the US/UK as resistance free as we can.
2) Cattle prod approach, for lack of a better term: Close loopholes and force companies registered in the U.S. to pay US taxes regardless of where income was earned. Predicated on the notion that the current tax scheme allows companies to pay rates far below what they "should" pay, and that they are gaming the current system (albeit legally).
The goal of both approaches is different. My approach has two aims: Encourage economic development and prosperity, and raise tax revenue by reducing tax avoidance incentives (lower rates, simpler code), etc. The second approach has the goal of increasing revenue and making the tax code more "fair" by mandating that large corporations pay a domestic tax rate.
Now, obviously you took great offense at the term "statist." The reason I used that is that I find people who embrace approach #2 tend to meet my definition of a statist (that is, one who favors collective rights and action over individual rights and action). Now clearly, you're not an "absolute" statist. Such a person would be a full-blown communist, which is certainly not in any sense what I'm claiming. You also made several derogatory and/or dismissive references to "free market principles." Either way, I apologize if you were offended. I also went a little too far with the "baby"comment, though it was meant at least partially in jest. Apologies for that as well.
It would be better if we stick to the issue. May I ask: Which of the two approaches do you favor, and why?